theguardian--2020-01-16--Taliban offer to stand down fighters to restart peace talks with US

The Taliban have offered to stand down their fighters for several days , in an effort to restart peace negotiations with the US that were abruptly called off last year by Donald Trump .
The proposal for a seven to 10-day halt in military operations was given to the US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on Wednesday , AP reported .
The US , which has been pushing for a ceasefire to pave the way for new talks , is still evaluating the insurgents ’ offer , an American official said .
The offer was reportedly handed over in Qatar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the venue for many rounds of talks .
The group ’ s top leadership is based in Pakistan and envoys have been shuttling back and forth between the countries .
Washington last year appeared to be edging closer to an agreement to end its longest war , after nearly two decades , and bring thousands of troops home .
But after a spike in violence and the death of a US soldier in September , Trump announced on Twitter that he had called off negotiations .
Two months later , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground , he appeared to signal that his peace effort was back on , saying that the Taliban “ want to make a deal ” , but it would be conditional on a ceasefire .
A day later the militant group confirmed they were ready to restart talks .
However , they have reportedly been concerned about agreeing to a ceasefire , for fear that it would sap fighters ’ morale and potentially undermine their position on the battlefield if it proved hard to redeploy fighters .
The Taliban control large swaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any major towns or cities .
“ There was a thinking within the Taliban ranks that it would be difficult for them to reorganise fighters after a break in fighting , ” one Taliban official told AP .
A short and partial ceasefire may allow the group to avoid those concerns .
Pakistan ’ s foreign minister , Shah Mahmood Qureshi , said in a video message only that the Taliban were “ ready for a reduction in violence ” , rather than using the word ceasefire .
The New York Times also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale back violence , not halt it entirely .
Any kind of ceasefire may help bring Afghan officials into the peace process , as it would presumably require a matching commitment from Afghan security forces to temporarily lay down arms .
“ The signals from Doha point toward the Taliban edging closer to a deal with the Americans that would kickstart a peace process , ” said Graeme Smith , senior consultant with the International Crisis Group .
“ The Taliban have not launched a major urban attack anywhere in the country for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is highly unusual .
While insurgent attacks continue in rural areas , this suggests the Taliban do not want to spoil the ongoing diplomacy.
” President Ashraf Ghani and his team have largely been excluded from US-Taliban discussions because the militants denounce the Kabul government as US puppets and refuse to speak to them .
Khalilzad has said in the past that a US-Taliban deal covering the withdrawal of American troops would also pave the way for negotiations between Afghans on all sides of the war , although critics fear that any Taliban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce them .
The situation is complicated by Afghanistan ’ s political fragility .
It is still waiting for the official results of a presidential election held last September , which was marred by low turnout and violence before contested vote counting even began .
Ghani has claimed re-election , but his main rival Abdullah Abdullah is contesting the count .

The Taliban have offered to stand down their fighters for several days, in an effort to restart peace negotiations with the US that were abruptly called off last year by Donald Trump.
The proposal for a seven to 10-day halt in military operations was given to the US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on Wednesday, AP reported. The US, which has been pushing for a ceasefire to pave the way for new talks, is still evaluating the insurgents’ offer, an American official said.
The offer was reportedly handed over in Qatar, which hosts a Taliban political delegation and has been the venue for many rounds of talks. The group’s top leadership is based in Pakistan and envoys have been shuttling back and forth between the countries.
Washington last year appeared to be edging closer to an agreement to end its longest war, after nearly two decades, and bring thousands of troops home. But after a spike in violence and the death of a US soldier in September, Trump announced on Twitter that he had called off negotiations.
Two months later, on a Thanksgiving trip to troops stationed on the ground, he appeared to signal that his peace effort was back on, saying that the Taliban “want to make a deal”, but it would be conditional on a ceasefire.
A day later the militant group confirmed they were ready to restart talks. However, they have reportedly been concerned about agreeing to a ceasefire, for fear that it would sap fighters’ morale and potentially undermine their position on the battlefield if it proved hard to redeploy fighters.
The Taliban control large swaths of the countryside but do not hold any major towns or cities. “There was a thinking within the Taliban ranks that it would be difficult for them to reorganise fighters after a break in fighting,” one Taliban official told AP.
A short and partial ceasefire may allow the group to avoid those concerns. Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, said in a video message only that the Taliban were “ready for a reduction in violence”, rather than using the word ceasefire. The New York Times also reported that the Taliban had offered to scale back violence, not halt it entirely.
Any kind of ceasefire may help bring Afghan officials into the peace process, as it would presumably require a matching commitment from Afghan security forces to temporarily lay down arms.
“The signals from Doha point toward the Taliban edging closer to a deal with the Americans that would kickstart a peace process,” said Graeme Smith, senior consultant with the International Crisis Group.
“The Taliban have not launched a major urban attack anywhere in the country for two months. Such a calibrated pause is highly unusual. While insurgent attacks continue in rural areas, this suggests the Taliban do not want to spoil the ongoing diplomacy.”
President Ashraf Ghani and his team have largely been excluded from US-Taliban discussions because the militants denounce the Kabul government as US puppets and refuse to speak to them.
Khalilzad has said in the past that a US-Taliban deal covering the withdrawal of American troops would also pave the way for negotiations between Afghans on all sides of the war, although critics fear that any Taliban commitments carry little weight without a mechanism to enforce them.
The situation is complicated by Afghanistan’s political fragility. It is still waiting for the official results of a presidential election held last September, which was marred by low turnout and violence before contested vote counting even began. Ghani has claimed re-election, but his main rival Abdullah Abdullah is contesting the count.


theguardian--2020-01-17--Trump has savaged the environment. The planet cannot afford a second term | Ross Barkan

What are the consequences of a second term of Donald Trump ?
To even consider the question sends the left-leaning mind into a paroxysm .
Everything from nuclear war to the utter collapse of American democracy looms large in the imaginations of otherwise sober-minded people .
In truth , the damage may be less immediately obvious .
Life , in many ways , would go on .
But the planet we inhabit will continue to heat up , and the most powerful government on Earth would be doing everything it can to further destabilize the environment around us .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration announced it planned to radically revise the National Environmental Policy Act , a landmark measure that forced federal infrastructure projects to take into account their impact on the environment .
Under the rewritten rules , builders of highways , pipelines , and other major infrastructure projects would no longer have to consider climate change when assessing their impact .
It is , without question , one of the most grievous blows Trump has inflicted since taking office three years ago .
It follows more than 100 environmental rollbacks , including relaxing rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for endangered species .
Fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline would have free rein , undaunted by court challenges that ruled the Trump administration didn ’ t properly consider climate change when analyzing the pipeline ’ s impact .
The new rules would dramatically narrow which projects would require environmental review , with many infrastructure initiatives sailing through the approval process without having to disclose plans to discharge waste , cut trees or increase air pollution .
The new rule would no longer require agencies to consider the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a requirement interpreted as a mandate to study the effects of ruinous greenhouse gas emission and rising sea levels .
The act currently requires the federal government to prepare detailed analyses of projects that could have major environmental effects .
It was a Republican , Richard Nixon , who enacted the law in 1970 after the heavily polluted Cuyahoga River caught fire and a tanker spilled 3m gallons of crude off the coast of California .
Though Nixon was a perpetual villain for leftists of the era , he created the Environmental Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack today .
Even conservatives at the time acknowledged that the government had a role to play in being stewards of the environment we all share .
We are in a new , terrifying age .
Trump ’ s Republican party is far more savagely conservative than any version that came before it .
It ’ s important to understand that the shredding of environmental regulations is not something that would have been unique to a Trump presidency , unlike his Twitter inanities or nonstop campaign rallies .
The Koch brothers and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been dreaming of the day they could again control the executive branch to pursue an agenda of environmental destruction.Trump presides over a party that denies the existence of climate change , that rejects science itself .
There are few equivalents elsewhere .
Even Boris Johnson ’ s Conservatives acknowledge there is a climate crisis afoot .
But had Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won the presidency in 2016 , the assault on the EPA would have commenced as expeditiously as it is now .
Perhaps they , like Trump , would have named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Four years of damage can be undone .
Eight is far more difficult .
The Democrats running for president , and the millions who will go to the polls this fall , must understand the planetary stakes .
A functioning EPA is essential to reversing the worst effects of climate change , which are very likely to be felt at the cataclysmic rate the planet is warming .
If Trump has eight years in power , fossil companies will have carte blanche to profit off environmental destruction for a very significant amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not only have to undo Trump ’ s damage but rapidly play catch-up as the world races to secure a future for the human race .
The doomsday clock is ticking .

What are the consequences of a second term of Donald Trump? To even consider the question sends the left-leaning mind into a paroxysm. Everything from nuclear war to the utter collapse of American democracy looms large in the imaginations of otherwise sober-minded people.
In truth, the damage may be less immediately obvious. Life, in many ways, would go on. But the planet we inhabit will continue to heat up, and the most powerful government on Earth would be doing everything it can to further destabilize the environment around us. Just after the new year, the Trump administration announced it planned to radically revise the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark measure that forced federal infrastructure projects to take into account their impact on the environment. Under the rewritten rules, builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects would no longer have to consider climate change when assessing their impact.
It is, without question, one of the most grievous blows Trump has inflicted since taking office three years ago. It follows more than 100 environmental rollbacks, including relaxing rules limiting emissions from coal plants and weakening protections for endangered species.
Fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline would have free rein, undaunted by court challenges that ruled the Trump administration didn’t properly consider climate change when analyzing the pipeline’s impact. The new rules would dramatically narrow which projects would require environmental review, with many infrastructure initiatives sailing through the approval process without having to disclose plans to discharge waste, cut trees or increase air pollution.
The new rule would no longer require agencies to consider the “cumulative” consequences of new infrastructure, a requirement interpreted as a mandate to study the effects of ruinous greenhouse gas emission and rising sea levels. The act currently requires the federal government to prepare detailed analyses of projects that could have major environmental effects.
It was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who enacted the law in 1970 after the heavily polluted Cuyahoga River caught fire and a tanker spilled 3m gallons of crude off the coast of California. Though Nixon was a perpetual villain for leftists of the era, he created the Environmental Protection Agency, developing the crucial regulations under attack today. Even conservatives at the time acknowledged that the government had a role to play in being stewards of the environment we all share.
We are in a new, terrifying age. Trump’s Republican party is far more savagely conservative than any version that came before it. It’s important to understand that the shredding of environmental regulations is not something that would have been unique to a Trump presidency, unlike his Twitter inanities or nonstop campaign rallies. The Koch brothers and other billionaire funders of the Republican party have been dreaming of the day they could again control the executive branch to pursue an agenda of environmental destruction.Trump presides over a party that denies the existence of climate change, that rejects science itself. There are few equivalents elsewhere. Even Boris Johnson’s Conservatives acknowledge there is a climate crisis afoot. But had Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won the presidency in 2016, the assault on the EPA would have commenced as expeditiously as it is now. Perhaps they, like Trump, would have named a coal lobbyist to lead the agency.
Four years of damage can be undone. Eight is far more difficult. The Democrats running for president, and the millions who will go to the polls this fall, must understand the planetary stakes. A functioning EPA is essential to reversing the worst effects of climate change, which are very likely to be felt at the cataclysmic rate the planet is warming.
If Trump has eight years in power, fossil companies will have carte blanche to profit off environmental destruction for a very significant amount of time. The next Democratic president will not only have to undo Trump’s damage but rapidly play catch-up as the world races to secure a future for the human race. The doomsday clock is ticking.


theguardian--2020-01-17--Is Donald Trump's Iran strategy working?

The US president Donald Trump ’ s authorisation of the targeted killing of the Iranian al-Quds force commander , Qassem Suleimani , is , in many ways , similar to his administration ’ s approach to trade .
In both cases , the administration has demonstrated a willingness to surprise by unilaterally leveraging US strength in the pursuit of long-term outcomes , despite considerable short-term risks and without wide consultations .
As Ronald Reagan showed in the 1980s with his strategy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union , such aggressive unilateralism can work .
But it is best used selectively and sparingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and European ) grievances against certain Chinese trade practices , the Trump administration decided to abandon the traditional approach of seeking redress through existing multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization .
Instead , it opted for what game theorists call a non-cooperative approach , imposing harsh tariffs on Chinese imports and then threatening even more should China retaliate .
By weaponising what is traditionally an economic-policy tool , the US has been able to pursue national-security objectives alongside economic and financial goals .
So far , at least , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just like his unilateral push to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement , he has shown a willingness to tolerate some damage at home in the hope that the damage inflicted on the other parties would be far greater and force them to make concessions .
The Reagan administration perfected this approach when it embarked on an accelerated arms race with the Soviet Union ( or what Reagan labelled the “ evil empire ” ) .
In ratcheting up defence spending , Reagan leveraged the US ’ s economic and financial strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not possibly keep up .
In the end , he secured not only a narrow tactical victory but a wider geopolitical triumph , eventually culminating in the Soviet Union ’ s collapse .
Pressing an adversary into a corner in the hope that it will make a mistake is an old strategy .
And as with any strategy , it comes with potential costs and risks .
In Reagan ’ s case , his administration had to bear the economic and political costs of creating large budget deficits , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviets .
In the case of Nafta , the Trump administration ran the risk that retaliation by Canada and Mexico would result in beggar-thy-neighbour outcomes for all .
After an initial attempt to do so , however , they made many of the concessions the US wanted and that are now included in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) .
China , however , initially reacted differently , and may have overplayed its hand .
By prolonging trade tensions with the US through an extended tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs , the authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many companies to start diversifying their supply chains in an effort to reduce their reliance on China .
The new mantra among a growing number of those operating in China reflects this : “ In China , for China ” .
The immediate effect of these developments has been to complicate China ’ s effort to implement the structural reforms needed to maintain its historic ( if not unprecedented ) rise .
But over the longer term , the further-reaching effects of the trade war could increase the possibility that China will become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many developing countries before it .
If that happens , the US will have managed to avert the global economy ’ s full evolution from an American-led order to a bipolar one .
All of this takes us to Iran , where the Trump administration ’ s recent confrontation seems to be following the same playbook .
The pattern is clear : the administration takes a surprise step that its predecessors might have considered but never pursued ; it does so without wide internal and external consultations .
The immediate result is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third countries ( including allies ) raising concerns about America ’ s unilateralist turn .
The adversary ( in this case Iran ) issues a response that , while less severe , leads it also to make a tragic mistake ( the accidental downing of a civilian passenger flight ) .
Now , even the European countries that had long sought to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are accusing Iran of violating that agreement .
How this conflict will play out remains to be seen .
But it is already clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the greatest immediate risk – an outright war or a destabilising asymmetrical conflict – has been avoided , at least for now .
Again , however , this is not to suggest that the strategy of pressing one ’ s relative strengths is always advisable .
Excessive reliance on aggressive unilateralism risks dismantling an international architecture that has served US interests well .
Moreover , the Trump administration ’ s actions , if pressed too hard , could force third countries to make choices that run counter to US interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ continued willingness to deepen their economic and financial relationships with China through its “ Belt and Road Initiative , ” despite US objections .
In the end , aggressive unilateralism is not an approach that can be applied as a general rule .
It should be used in a highly selective and infrequent manner , and only after a careful assessment of the costs and benefits .
Done right , it can help achieve targeted gains while containing collateral damage .
But if it is abused , far-reaching unintended consequences could follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Mohamed A El-Erian is chief economic adviser at Allianz .
He served as chair of President Barack Obama ’ s Global Development Council and was one-time deputy director at the IMF .

The US president Donald Trump’s authorisation of the targeted killing of the Iranian al-Quds force commander, Qassem Suleimani, is, in many ways, similar to his administration’s approach to trade. In both cases, the administration has demonstrated a willingness to surprise by unilaterally leveraging US strength in the pursuit of long-term outcomes, despite considerable short-term risks and without wide consultations. As Ronald Reagan showed in the 1980s with his strategy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, such aggressive unilateralism can work. But it is best used selectively and sparingly.
In seeking to address long-term US (and European) grievances against certain Chinese trade practices, the Trump administration decided to abandon the traditional approach of seeking redress through existing multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Instead, it opted for what game theorists call a non-cooperative approach, imposing harsh tariffs on Chinese imports and then threatening even more should China retaliate. By weaponising what is traditionally an economic-policy tool, the US has been able to pursue national-security objectives alongside economic and financial goals.
So far, at least, the underlying calculation has worked for Trump. Just like his unilateral push to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement, he has shown a willingness to tolerate some damage at home in the hope that the damage inflicted on the other parties would be far greater and force them to make concessions.
Pressing an adversary into a corner in the hope that it will make a mistake is an old strategy
The Reagan administration perfected this approach when it embarked on an accelerated arms race with the Soviet Union (or what Reagan labelled the “evil empire”). In ratcheting up defence spending, Reagan leveraged the US’s economic and financial strength in the knowledge that the Soviets could not possibly keep up. In the end, he secured not only a narrow tactical victory but a wider geopolitical triumph, eventually culminating in the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Pressing an adversary into a corner in the hope that it will make a mistake is an old strategy. And as with any strategy, it comes with potential costs and risks. In Reagan’s case, his administration had to bear the economic and political costs of creating large budget deficits, as well as the risk of a serious military confrontation with the Soviets.
In the case of Nafta, the Trump administration ran the risk that retaliation by Canada and Mexico would result in beggar-thy-neighbour outcomes for all. After an initial attempt to do so, however, they made many of the concessions the US wanted and that are now included in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). China, however, initially reacted differently, and may have overplayed its hand. By prolonging trade tensions with the US through an extended tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs, the authorities allowed the economy to slow and prompted many companies to start diversifying their supply chains in an effort to reduce their reliance on China. The new mantra among a growing number of those operating in China reflects this: “In China, for China”.
The immediate effect of these developments has been to complicate China’s effort to implement the structural reforms needed to maintain its historic (if not unprecedented) rise. But over the longer term, the further-reaching effects of the trade war could increase the possibility that China will become ensnared in the middle-income trap, like so many developing countries before it. If that happens, the US will have managed to avert the global economy’s full evolution from an American-led order to a bipolar one.
All of this takes us to Iran, where the Trump administration’s recent confrontation seems to be following the same playbook. The pattern is clear: the administration takes a surprise step that its predecessors might have considered but never pursued; it does so without wide internal and external consultations. The immediate result is a significant spike in tensions, with third countries (including allies) raising concerns about America’s unilateralist turn. The adversary (in this case Iran) issues a response that, while less severe, leads it also to make a tragic mistake (the accidental downing of a civilian passenger flight). Now, even the European countries that had long sought to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are accusing Iran of violating that agreement.
Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
How this conflict will play out remains to be seen. But it is already clear that the US has made some gains, and that the greatest immediate risk – an outright war or a destabilising asymmetrical conflict – has been avoided, at least for now.
Again, however, this is not to suggest that the strategy of pressing one’s relative strengths is always advisable. Excessive reliance on aggressive unilateralism risks dismantling an international architecture that has served US interests well. Moreover, the Trump administration’s actions, if pressed too hard, could force third countries to make choices that run counter to US interests. Witness, for example, some countries’ continued willingness to deepen their economic and financial relationships with China through its “Belt and Road Initiative,” despite US objections.
In the end, aggressive unilateralism is not an approach that can be applied as a general rule. It should be used in a highly selective and infrequent manner, and only after a careful assessment of the costs and benefits. Done right, it can help achieve targeted gains while containing collateral damage. But if it is abused, far-reaching unintended consequences could follow, implying ever-higher costs over time.
Mohamed A El-Erian is chief economic adviser at Allianz. He served as chair of President Barack Obama’s Global Development Council and was one-time deputy director at the IMF.
© Project Syndicate


theguardian--2020-01-16--The Guardian view on the Trump trial: a defining moment for the rule of law | Editorial

The impeachment of a president of the United States is an immensely powerful constitutional act .
Donald Trump is only the third president in more than 230 years to face trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House of Representatives .
The trial that begins in earnest next week could result in Mr Trump becoming the first president to be dismissed from office .
His two impeached predecessors – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 – each escaped that outcome .
Mr Trump is likely to escape it too .
Nevertheless , this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most Americans rightly take it seriously .
It is easy , but wrong , to overlook this .
Mr Trump treats the impeachment and trial with everything bar solemnity .
He regards it as nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt .
Like Mr Clinton he will not attend the trial in person .
Unlike Mr Clinton he is likely to spend the next month raging against the process and insulting his accusers .
But this does not mean the trial itself is trivial .
The formality of the initial proceedings this week is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , the American public should not dismiss it as trivial either .
The two charges – the articles of impeachment – against Mr Trump are genuinely serious .
The first says he “ abused the powers of the presidency ” by trying to get Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election .
He did this in three ways , the article states : by corruptly soliciting investigations by Ukraine that would assist his re-election ; by corruptly withholding aid to Ukraine unless it cooperated ; and by corruptly persisting with pressuring Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article concludes that this makes Mr Trump a threat to US national security if he remains in office .
All in all , it is very much the kind of conduct that the Congress ’ s power to impeach was designed to control .
The second article charges Mr Trump with obstruction of Congress as it attempted to carry out its lawful power of impeachment .
It says the obstruction involved defiance of subpoenas , and orders by Mr Trump to government officials not to comply either .
Such defiance of an impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachable .
It will be tested during the trial when the Senate votes on whether to call officials , such as the former national security adviser John Bolton , the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and the Soviet-born US businessman Lev Parnas , as witnesses .
This will be a pivotal moment for America .
If the Senate does not call the witnesses , it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law .
That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility .
The US upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both the elected house and the president .
It was there , the historian Robert Caro writes , as a check on “ the possibilities for tyranny inherent in executive authority ” .
That is why the Senate has so many powers , including that of trying an impeachment .
Yet the current Senate is a place of ruthless partisanship and irreconcilability , acting invariably on behalf of Mr Trump .
This trial is therefore not just a defining moment for Mr Trump and for the presidency .
It is also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the Senate votes on purely party lines to acquit and Mr Trump is then re-elected , this would be an infamous outcome .
The idea that a president can abuse his office for personal gain would be accepted .
A new and lawless presidential legitimacy would be sanctioned .
And the checks and balances of the US constitution would no longer exist and would need to be built afresh .

The impeachment of a president of the United States is an immensely powerful constitutional act. Donald Trump is only the third president in more than 230 years to face trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House of Representatives. The trial that begins in earnest next week could result in Mr Trump becoming the first president to be dismissed from office. His two impeached predecessors – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 – each escaped that outcome. Mr Trump is likely to escape it too. Nevertheless, this is a hugely solemn moment for the republic. Most Americans rightly take it seriously.
It is easy, but wrong, to overlook this. Mr Trump treats the impeachment and trial with everything bar solemnity. He regards it as nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt. Like Mr Clinton he will not attend the trial in person. Unlike Mr Clinton he is likely to spend the next month raging against the process and insulting his accusers. But this does not mean the trial itself is trivial. The formality of the initial proceedings this week is appropriate. Even in polarised and partisan times, the American public should not dismiss it as trivial either.
The two charges – the articles of impeachment – against Mr Trump are genuinely serious. The first says he “abused the powers of the presidency” by trying to get Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election. He did this in three ways, the article states: by corruptly soliciting investigations by Ukraine that would assist his re-election; by corruptly withholding aid to Ukraine unless it cooperated; and by corruptly persisting with pressuring Ukraine afterwards for his own benefit. The article concludes that this makes Mr Trump a threat to US national security if he remains in office. All in all, it is very much the kind of conduct that the Congress’s power to impeach was designed to control.
The second article charges Mr Trump with obstruction of Congress as it attempted to carry out its lawful power of impeachment. It says the obstruction involved defiance of subpoenas, and orders by Mr Trump to government officials not to comply either. Such defiance of an impeachment process is, in principle, itself impeachable. It will be tested during the trial when the Senate votes on whether to call officials, such as the former national security adviser John Bolton, the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and the Soviet-born US businessman Lev Parnas, as witnesses.
This will be a pivotal moment for America. If the Senate does not call the witnesses, it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law. That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility. The US upper house was originally created as a restraint on both the elected house and the president. It was there, the historian Robert Caro writes, as a check on “the possibilities for tyranny inherent in executive authority”. That is why the Senate has so many powers, including that of trying an impeachment. Yet the current Senate is a place of ruthless partisanship and irreconcilability, acting invariably on behalf of Mr Trump.
This trial is therefore not just a defining moment for Mr Trump and for the presidency. It is also a defining moment for the Senate itself. If the Senate votes on purely party lines to acquit and Mr Trump is then re-elected, this would be an infamous outcome. The idea that a president can abuse his office for personal gain would be accepted. A new and lawless presidential legitimacy would be sanctioned. And the checks and balances of the US constitution would no longer exist and would need to be built afresh.


theguardian--2020-01-16--The Iowa caucuses are three weeks away – and there’s no clear frontrunner | Art Cullen

The plain fact is that we Iowans are having a hard time making up our minds .
Our attention has been firmly fixed on a historically huge field of 25 Democratic presidential candidates since each stood on a soapbox and delivered their pitch at the state fair in August , within earshot of the butter cow .
Now it appears we are down to an effective field of a half-dozen – Iowa ’ s function in the nomination process is to responsibly winnow the field – and the gold standard of polling told us last weekend it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us who think we are close to decided are still sucking our thumbs and remain open to some other suitor .
The Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa poll reported Friday that Bernie Sanders has a slight lead at 20 % , with Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden bunched in close behind in double digits .
Amy Klobuchar is in shouting distance at 6 % , and Andrew Yang pulls in 5 % .
The old saying goes that there are three tickets out of Iowa , with its first-in-the-nation caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , four tickets may get punched for the next stop in New Hampshire a week later .
It does not appear that there is a dominant frontrunner – Warren trails by three points and Biden by five .
“ Viability ” is the watchword .
That ’ s because the caucus rules dictate that a candidate must have 15 % support from the attendees who show up for two hours in a school cafeteria on a typical winter evening draped in freezing rain .
Only Sanders , Warren , Buttigieg and Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is worth keeping an eye on , as the next-door neighbor from Minnesota , but her support hasn ’ t swelled .
Still , a third of the Democrats may trudge into that cafeteria undecided .
Or they realize their candidate is not viable when they get there .
Speeches get under way from neighbors who are precinct captains for each campaign .
Appeals are made .
Musical chairs commence .
Unviable camps are courted by the viable .
Second choices , in this context , are as important as first .
Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa poll reported .
Sixty perc ent of those polled said the former South Bend mayor is either their first or second choice , while 59 % say the same about the senator from Massachusetts .
At the same time , Buttigieg ’ s support in the poll as a first choice plummeted nine points after having led in the last poll in November .
He , like Warren when she briefly led , came under intense attack .
His corporate ties and tensions with the African American community came under scrutiny as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It showed in the polling .
Warren took her beating earlier and since has stabilized , actually bouncing up a tad .
The poll reported that while Buttigieg slid , “ undecideds ” rose .
Buttigieg has perhaps the only paid organizing network as large as Warren ’ s in the Tall Corn state .
The Iowa caucuses have historically served as a test of a campaign ’ s ability to organize and turn out voters at the precinct level .
Warren set up shop statewide , with a special emphasis on rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputedly caught up to her in committing resources to organizing .
But she has been at it longer , especially in those forgotten rural places that could give a winner the margin they need .
Sanders benefits from a core of support that has stayed in place since he virtually tied Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus in 2016 .
His indictment : Clinton supported the Iraq war .
His indictment revisited : Biden supported the Iraq war – a not-inconsiderable charge in Iowa .
Iowa Democrats have a strong anti-war streak that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which all goes to say that nobody has any clue who will win our two-year-long parlor game .
Probably , there will be no clear winner .
Likely , there will be four viable campaigns .
I suspect on-the-ground organization matters most – especially for candidates who are tied up in a congressional impeachment trial and can ’ t campaign .
For certain , caucus night is going to be crazy .
No doubt about that .
• None Art Cullen is editor of the Storm Lake Times in north-west Iowa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial writing .
He is author of the book Storm Lake : Change , Resilience , and Hope in America ’ s Heartland , due in paperback later this month from Penguin

The plain fact is that we Iowans are having a hard time making up our minds.
Our attention has been firmly fixed on a historically huge field of 25 Democratic presidential candidates since each stood on a soapbox and delivered their pitch at the state fair in August, within earshot of the butter cow.
Now it appears we are down to an effective field of a half-dozen – Iowa’s function in the nomination process is to responsibly winnow the field – and the gold standard of polling told us last weekend it’s a wide-open race. And that about half of us who think we are close to decided are still sucking our thumbs and remain open to some other suitor.
The Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa poll reported Friday that Bernie Sanders has a slight lead at 20%, with Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden bunched in close behind in double digits. Amy Klobuchar is in shouting distance at 6%, and Andrew Yang pulls in 5%.
The old saying goes that there are three tickets out of Iowa, with its first-in-the-nation caucuses set for Monday 3 February. This time, four tickets may get punched for the next stop in New Hampshire a week later. It does not appear that there is a dominant frontrunner – Warren trails by three points and Biden by five.
“Viability” is the watchword. That’s because the caucus rules dictate that a candidate must have 15% support from the attendees who show up for two hours in a school cafeteria on a typical winter evening draped in freezing rain.
Only Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Biden muster 15% so far. Klobuchar is worth keeping an eye on, as the next-door neighbor from Minnesota, but her support hasn’t swelled.
Still, a third of the Democrats may trudge into that cafeteria undecided. Or they realize their candidate is not viable when they get there. Speeches get under way from neighbors who are precinct captains for each campaign. Appeals are made. Musical chairs commence. Unviable camps are courted by the viable.
Second choices, in this context, are as important as first.
Buttigieg and Warren have strong advantages, the Iowa poll reported. Sixty perc ent of those polled said the former South Bend mayor is either their first or second choice, while 59% say the same about the senator from Massachusetts.
At the same time, Buttigieg’s support in the poll as a first choice plummeted nine points after having led in the last poll in November. He, like Warren when she briefly led, came under intense attack. His corporate ties and tensions with the African American community came under scrutiny as did Warren’s healthcare position. It showed in the polling. Warren took her beating earlier and since has stabilized, actually bouncing up a tad. The poll reported that while Buttigieg slid, “undecideds” rose.
Buttigieg has perhaps the only paid organizing network as large as Warren’s in the Tall Corn state. The Iowa caucuses have historically served as a test of a campaign’s ability to organize and turn out voters at the precinct level. Warren set up shop statewide, with a special emphasis on rural areas so often flown over. Buttigieg reputedly caught up to her in committing resources to organizing. But she has been at it longer, especially in those forgotten rural places that could give a winner the margin they need.
Sanders benefits from a core of support that has stayed in place since he virtually tied Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus in 2016. His indictment: Clinton supported the Iraq war. His indictment revisited: Biden supported the Iraq war – a not-inconsiderable charge in Iowa. Iowa Democrats have a strong anti-war streak that runs deep among descendants of Prussian draft-dodgers.
Which all goes to say that nobody has any clue who will win our two-year-long parlor game. Probably, there will be no clear winner. Likely, there will be four viable campaigns. I suspect on-the-ground organization matters most – especially for candidates who are tied up in a congressional impeachment trial and can’t campaign. For certain, caucus night is going to be crazy. No doubt about that.


theguardian--2020-01-17--Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr join Trump impeachment legal team

The White House has unveiled Donald Trump ’ s legal team for his Senate impeachment trial , a list of attorneys whose own ageing controversies threaten to overshadow their efforts to defend the president .
As the impeachment process enters a major new phase next week , Trump ’ s defense team will include Alan Dershowitz , known for defending the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein , and Kenneth Starr , the dogged prosecutor who led the investigation that culminated in the 1998 impeachment of former president Bill Clinton and lost a university post in 2016 for mishandling sexual assaults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ‘ are you fucking kidding me ?
’ kinda day , ” tweeted Monica Lewinsky , whom Starr reportedly threatened with criminal charges in 1998 to get her to testify in forensic detail about her relationship with Clinton , which became a central focus of the impeachment inquiry against him .
Dershowitz sought to deny in a radio interview Friday afternoon that he was a “ member of the Trump legal team ” , saying that he would speak on behalf of the US constitution .
But he has been invited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak during the time allotted to Trump ’ s defense and he will make an argument that effectively and exclusively encourages the president ’ s acquittal .
The question of how Trump ’ s legal team will defend him sharpened as the House of Representatives , which impeached Trump last month , handed over the process to the Senate , where a trial will culminate in a vote on whether to remove Trump from office .
The trial is expected to last at least two weeks and could feature testimony by close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to speak out on allegations that Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine in an effort to manufacture damaging headlines about the former vice-president Joe Biden , a political rival .
Trump was impeached for abuse of power in the scheme and for obstructing the efforts of Congress to investigate it .
A two-thirds majority of senators present would be required to remove Trump from office .
Most political observers think he is safe , given the lockstep loyalty of Republicans , who hold a majority in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the impeachment trial means that neither Trump nor his Republican surrogates are quite in control of the president ’ s political fate .
If Democrats can recruit just a few Republican senators to join their call for witnesses to testify at the Senate trial , new details about Trump ’ s attempt to extract a “ favor ” from Ukraine could emerge , with unknown consequences for his approval rating as he seeks re-election in November .
A majority of American voters have consistently said in opinion polls that Trump abused his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling directed by conservative media organizations .
Trump ’ s legal team will be led by the White House counsel , Pat Cipollone , and by Jay Sekulow , a longtime personal lawyer to Trump .
Also defending Trump will be Pam Bondi , a White House impeachment adviser ; Jane Raskin , who defended Trump during the Robert Mueller inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election ; and Robert Ray , who was on the independent counsel team with Starr in the Clinton era .
As White House counsel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give legal advice pertaining to the presidency , as opposed to defending Trump personally .
But he has been embroiled in impeachment since he signed an October letter declaring that the White House would not turn over documents or otherwise cooperate with impeachment investigators – a letter that Democrats later made exhibit A of Trump ’ s obstruction of Congress .
Dershowitz , 81 , a retired professor of constitutional law at Harvard University , and Starr , 73 , formerly president of Baylor University in Texas , have demonstrated their loyalty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But their presence in the Senate chamber for Trump ’ s impeachment trial could complicate certain features of Trump ’ s defense , including the attempt by top Republicans to block new witness testimony .
In arguing for witnesses , Democrats will be able to point to the extraordinarily wide net for testimony that Starr cast in his five-year investigation of Clinton , which included interviews with ex-boyfriends of Lewinsky and the White House window washers .
Continuing controversies attached to Starr and Dershowitz , both of whom worked as lawyers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York jail cell last year , could distract from the effort to exculpate Trump .
Starr stepped down as president of Baylor in 2016 following an investigation into allegations that he failed to respond to a sexual assault crisis involving the school ’ s football team .
Starr was not found guilty of wrongdoing and the two sides described the separation as a mutual agreement .
Dershowitz , a prominent first amendment litigator , found deeper notoriety as a friend and adviser to Epstein .
One of Epstein ’ s victims has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and defaming her ; in November , he countersued , denying any misconduct and claiming that he was being defamed and subjected to emotional distress .
Dershowitz has said he was “ shocked ” to learn the “ extent ” of Epstein ’ s crimes and said Epstein ’ s case was the one from his career that he regretted taking .
Apart from Lewinsky , the announcement of Trump ’ s team was met with degrees of disgust and mirth .
David Frum , a former speechwriter for George W Bush , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s possible to hire this calibre of representation without paying a nickel for it .
”

The White House has unveiled Donald Trump’s legal team for his Senate impeachment trial, a list of attorneys whose own ageing controversies threaten to overshadow their efforts to defend the president.
As the impeachment process enters a major new phase next week, Trump’s defense team will include Alan Dershowitz, known for defending the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and Kenneth Starr, the dogged prosecutor who led the investigation that culminated in the 1998 impeachment of former president Bill Clinton and lost a university post in 2016 for mishandling sexual assaults on campus.
“This is definitely an ‘are you fucking kidding me?’ kinda day,” tweeted Monica Lewinsky, whom Starr reportedly threatened with criminal charges in 1998 to get her to testify in forensic detail about her relationship with Clinton, which became a central focus of the impeachment inquiry against him.
Dershowitz sought to deny in a radio interview Friday afternoon that he was a “member of the Trump legal team”, saying that he would speak on behalf of the US constitution. But he has been invited to speak by Trump, he is expected to speak during the time allotted to Trump’s defense and he will make an argument that effectively and exclusively encourages the president’s acquittal.
The question of how Trump’s legal team will defend him sharpened as the House of Representatives, which impeached Trump last month, handed over the process to the Senate, where a trial will culminate in a vote on whether to remove Trump from office.
The trial is expected to last at least two weeks and could feature testimony by close Trump advisers and former advisers who have yet to speak out on allegations that Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine in an effort to manufacture damaging headlines about the former vice-president Joe Biden, a political rival.
Trump was impeached for abuse of power in the scheme and for obstructing the efforts of Congress to investigate it.
A two-thirds majority of senators present would be required to remove Trump from office. Most political observers think he is safe, given the lockstep loyalty of Republicans, who hold a majority in the Senate.
But an element of unpredictability in the impeachment trial means that neither Trump nor his Republican surrogates are quite in control of the president’s political fate.
If Democrats can recruit just a few Republican senators to join their call for witnesses to testify at the Senate trial, new details about Trump’s attempt to extract a “favor” from Ukraine could emerge, with unknown consequences for his approval rating as he seeks re-election in November.
A majority of American voters have consistently said in opinion polls that Trump abused his power and deserves impeachment, including in polling directed by conservative media organizations.
Trump’s legal team will be led by the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and by Jay Sekulow, a longtime personal lawyer to Trump. Also defending Trump will be Pam Bondi, a White House impeachment adviser; Jane Raskin, who defended Trump during the Robert Mueller inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election; and Robert Ray, who was on the independent counsel team with Starr in the Clinton era.
As White House counsel, Cipollone’s strict role is to give legal advice pertaining to the presidency, as opposed to defending Trump personally. But he has been embroiled in impeachment since he signed an October letter declaring that the White House would not turn over documents or otherwise cooperate with impeachment investigators – a letter that Democrats later made exhibit A of Trump’s obstruction of Congress.
Dershowitz, 81, a retired professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, and Starr, 73, formerly president of Baylor University in Texas, have demonstrated their loyalty to Trump in frequent appearances on cable television.
But their presence in the Senate chamber for Trump’s impeachment trial could complicate certain features of Trump’s defense, including the attempt by top Republicans to block new witness testimony.
In arguing for witnesses, Democrats will be able to point to the extraordinarily wide net for testimony that Starr cast in his five-year investigation of Clinton, which included interviews with ex-boyfriends of Lewinsky and the White House window washers.
Continuing controversies attached to Starr and Dershowitz, both of whom worked as lawyers for Epstein, who killed himself in a New York jail cell last year, could distract from the effort to exculpate Trump.
Starr stepped down as president of Baylor in 2016 following an investigation into allegations that he failed to respond to a sexual assault crisis involving the school’s football team. Starr was not found guilty of wrongdoing and the two sides described the separation as a mutual agreement.
Dershowitz, a prominent first amendment litigator, found deeper notoriety as a friend and adviser to Epstein.
One of Epstein’s victims has accused Dershowitz in court of sexually abusing and defaming her; in November, he countersued, denying any misconduct and claiming that he was being defamed and subjected to emotional distress.
Dershowitz has said he was “shocked” to learn the “extent” of Epstein’s crimes and said Epstein’s case was the one from his career that he regretted taking.
Apart from Lewinsky, the announcement of Trump’s team was met with degrees of disgust and mirth.
David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W Bush, tweeted: “Cannot believe it’s possible to hire this calibre of representation without paying a nickel for it.”


theguardian--2020-01-17--US states sue Trump administration over drastic cuts to food stamp program

A coalition of 13 states , New York City and Washington DC are suing the Trump administration over new restrictions for food stamp benefits for unemployed Americans – a measure they say could disqualify nearly 700,000 from federal food assistance .
The new rule , introduced in December , would eliminate states ’ discretion to waive work requirements in distressed economic areas , saving the federal government $ 5.5bn in spending over five years .
The lawsuit is the latest pushback by Democratic states against the Trump administration , as opponents criticize the president for what they say are proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those in large metropolitan areas .
In the suit , filed on Thursday , states say that by limiting their discretion , the new rule would actually terminate “ essential food assistance for benefits recipients who live in areas with insufficient jobs ” .
The coalition includes states like Oregon , Nevada , Minnesota and more areas hit hard by economic decline and job scarcity .
The suit claims cuts to food stamps benefits , known as the Snap program , would burden states with new administrative and economic costs from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instability ” .
They argue the administration adopted the cuts despite no evidence of a need , or any research on current labor market conditions – potentially affecting 688,000 to 850,000 adults without children .
“ States are in the best position to evaluate local economic circumstances and to determine where there are insufficient job opportunities such that work requirements would be ineffective , ” the suit says .
In December , the agriculture secretary , Sonny Perdue , insisted the new restrictions would begin the “ groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently more job openings than people to fill them ” .
“ We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand , ” he said .
New York ’ s attorney general , Letitia James , and the District of Columbia attorney general , Karl Racine , co-lead the lawsuit .
In a statement , James said restrictions to Snap benefits would push “ already vulnerable Americans into greater economic uncertainty ” .
“ The federal government ’ s latest assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core , ” he said .
The Snap program , first launched in 1977 , uses federal dollars to provide millions of low-income Americans with food assistance , aimed at reducing food insecurity .
States operate the program , splitting the cost of administering it with the federal government .
The federal government pays the full cost of Snap benefits to recipients .
James adds that the restrictions will force states “ to grapple with rising healthcare and homelessness costs ” that could result from a “ shortsighted and ill-conceived policy ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill , a federal relief for distressed farmers , that included stricter work requirements .
Those requirements were ultimately dropped .

A coalition of 13 states, New York City and Washington DC are suing the Trump administration over new restrictions for food stamp benefits for unemployed Americans – a measure they say could disqualify nearly 700,000 from federal food assistance.
The new rule, introduced in December, would eliminate states’ discretion to waive work requirements in distressed economic areas, saving the federal government $5.5bn in spending over five years.
The lawsuit is the latest pushback by Democratic states against the Trump administration, as opponents criticize the president for what they say are proposed changes that target the poor, unemployed and those in large metropolitan areas.
In the suit, filed on Thursday, states say that by limiting their discretion, the new rule would actually terminate “essential food assistance for benefits recipients who live in areas with insufficient jobs”.
The coalition includes states like Oregon, Nevada, Minnesota and more areas hit hard by economic decline and job scarcity. The suit claims cuts to food stamps benefits, known as the Snap program, would burden states with new administrative and economic costs from “the negative health effects of malnutrition and instability”.
They argue the administration adopted the cuts despite no evidence of a need, or any research on current labor market conditions – potentially affecting 688,000 to 850,000 adults without children.
“States are in the best position to evaluate local economic circumstances and to determine where there are insufficient job opportunities such that work requirements would be ineffective,” the suit says.
In December, the agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, insisted the new restrictions would begin the “groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them”.
“We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” he said.
New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and the District of Columbia attorney general, Karl Racine, co-lead the lawsuit. In a statement, James said restrictions to Snap benefits would push “already vulnerable Americans into greater economic uncertainty”.
“The federal government’s latest assault on vulnerable individuals is cruel to its core,” he said.
The Snap program, first launched in 1977, uses federal dollars to provide millions of low-income Americans with food assistance, aimed at reducing food insecurity. States operate the program, splitting the cost of administering it with the federal government. The federal government pays the full cost of Snap benefits to recipients.
James adds that the restrictions will force states “to grapple with rising healthcare and homelessness costs” that could result from a “shortsighted and ill-conceived policy”.
The new restrictions were first announced as Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill, a federal relief for distressed farmers, that included stricter work requirements. Those requirements were ultimately dropped.


theguardian--2020-01-17--Global markets rise despite slowest Chinese growth for 30 years

China ’ s economy stumbled last year to its lowest growth rate in almost 30 years after the tit-for-tat trade war with the US took its toll on manufacturing output and consumer spending .
The world ’ s second-largest economic power grew by 6.1 % in 2019 , down from 6.8 % in 2018 , and the lowest rate in 29 years .
However , investors cheered an apparent turnaround in fortunes following better-than-expected industrial output and retail sales figures for December , sending stock markets in Asia , Europe and the Americas higher .
The main international markets were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consumer confidence in China , with Britain ’ s FTSE 100 gaining 64.75 points or almost 1 % .
Ricardo Evangelista , senior analyst at ActivTrades , said optimism was spreading across the City of London about China ’ s ability to ride out the turmoil caused by Trump ’ s tariff hikes on Chinese imports .
“ The positivity came mainly from China , where industrial production and retail sales both exceeded the forecast , appearing to signal the turn of a corner for the growth of the Chinese economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China signed a first stage trade deal earlier this week that was characterised by analysts as a truce , after it signalled a limit on tariffs but left many in place .
Investors are hoping that the deal , although limited , could help thaw relations .
China ’ s industrial production grew 6.9 % year-on-year in December , which was the strongest in nine months .
Retail sales grew by 8 % , which was also stronger than expected , while fixed-asset investment beat forecasts with 5.4 % growth .
Jim Reid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said : “ Overall a strong set of December numbers came out from China pointing to a gradual recovery in economic activity .
”

China’s economy stumbled last year to its lowest growth rate in almost 30 years after the tit-for-tat trade war with the US took its toll on manufacturing output and consumer spending.
The world’s second-largest economic power grew by 6.1% in 2019, down from 6.8% in 2018, and the lowest rate in 29 years.
However, investors cheered an apparent turnaround in fortunes following better-than-expected industrial output and retail sales figures for December, sending stock markets in Asia, Europe and the Americas higher.
Q&A What is the China-US trade war about? Show The roots of the dispute come from US president Donald Trump’s “America first” project to protect the US’ position as the world’s leading economy, while encouraging businesses to hire more workers in the US and to manufacture their products there. Trump complains of a large trade deficit with China, which he views as a symbol of the US’s decline as a manufacturing powerhouse. Chinese imports to the US totalled $539.5bn last year, while $120.3bn was sold the other way – leaving a trade deficit of $419.2bn. The president has accused Beijing of “unfair” trade policies, including allowing the theft of US companies’ intellectual property. The threat of import tariffs on Chinese goods is being used as leverage in talks where Trump is seeking changes to Beijing’s trade policy. Tariffs have been imposed by Washington on some Chinese goods sold in the US for about a year. They came on top of broader tariffs used by Trump that have hit China and other trading partners such as the EU, Canada and Mexico, on goods including steel and aluminium. In May 2019 the US president further ratcheted up existing import tariffs of 10% on $200bn (£153bn) of Chinese goods sold in the US to 25%, hitting everything on a long list of products. Trump has previously warned that 25% tariffs could be slapped on a further $325bn of goods – which would mean all Chinese imports being covered by tariffs. However, talks in November 2019 aimed at easing tensions were welcomed as the beginning of a thaw in the trade war between the two nations. Richard Partington and Jasper Jolly Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
The main international markets were all positive following signs of improved business and consumer confidence in China, with Britain’s FTSE 100 gaining 64.75 points or almost 1%.
Ricardo Evangelista, senior analyst at ActivTrades, said optimism was spreading across the City of London about China’s ability to ride out the turmoil caused by Trump’s tariff hikes on Chinese imports.
“The positivity came mainly from China, where industrial production and retail sales both exceeded the forecast, appearing to signal the turn of a corner for the growth of the Chinese economy,” he said.
Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
The US and China signed a first stage trade deal earlier this week that was characterised by analysts as a truce, after it signalled a limit on tariffs but left many in place.
Investors are hoping that the deal, although limited, could help thaw relations.
China’s industrial production grew 6.9% year-on-year in December, which was the strongest in nine months. Retail sales grew by 8%, which was also stronger than expected, while fixed-asset investment beat forecasts with 5.4% growth.
Jim Reid, a fixed-income analyst at Deutsche Bank, said: “Overall a strong set of December numbers came out from China pointing to a gradual recovery in economic activity.”


theguardian--2020-01-17--Trump’s is the third impeachment in US history and no case has been stronger | Jonathan Freedland

The trial of Donald Trump , which opens in earnest on Tuesday , is the third presidential impeachment in US history – and the most legitimate .
For the first time , an American president will face the ultimate sanction not because he walked into a legal trap set by his opponents , or because of some broader , underlying rift in society , but because of the actual “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” on the charge sheet .
Legally , the Senate has never confronted a stronger case for the removal of a sitting president than the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , none of this means that Trump is about to be removed .
But it is worth bearing in mind , as you watch 53 Republican members of the Senate – now remade as a jury , every senator having sworn an oath to “ do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws ” – echo the vocabulary of the accused and blithely dismiss the whole business as a “ hoax ” or “ witch-hunt ” .
They ’ re wrong because Trump ’ s is the standout case in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small .
Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached – in effect , indicted – by the US House of Representatives , back in 1868 .
No one would want to defend Johnson or his politics .
He was a foul-mouthed , racist drunk , the accidental president who ’ d only been vice-president for a few weeks when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated , leaving him in the top job .
Johnson was only ever meant to be a symbolic number two : the governor of Tennessee who until a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ d been picked by Lincoln as a gesture of reconciliation towards the slave-owning south defeated in the civil war .
With Lincoln dead , Johnson found himself facing a Congress determined to grant at least a modicum of rights to 4 million former slaves .
Johnson was bent on thwarting that effort at every turn .
Still , you don ’ t have to feel a shred of sympathy for Johnson to recognise that his foes on Capitol Hill set for him what the constitutional law expert , Noah Feldman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They passed a law compelling him to keep in post appointees of his predecessor – including officials willing to grant basic liberties to newly freed black Americans .
Congress even wrote into law that any violation would constitute a “ high misdemeanor ” , ensuring that such a violation would automatically count as an impeachable offence .
So when Johnson sacked his secretary of war , he promptly walked right into the impeachment trap .
The circumstances for the second impeachee , Bill Clinton , were rather different , but he , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was asked under oath whether he had had a sexual relationship with the White House intern , Monica Lewinsky .
His inquisitors knew what he did not : that they had DNA evidence proving just such a relationship .
Clinton denied it , lying under oath .
He had walked into a perjury trap , and it was for that crime that he was tried in the Senate more than 20 years ago .
No such chicanery was necessary to ensnare Trump .
Of his own volition and requiring no prodding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call to the president of Ukraine in which he pressured him to dig up dirt on Trump ’ s political rival , Joe Biden , on pain of losing $ 400m in essential military aid or forfeiting a coveted meeting at the White House .
That is as clear an abuse of power as it is possible to imagine , using the muscle of the US government for personal gain .
It took no canny drafting of laws or sneaky questioning under oath .
Unlike Johnson and Clinton , Trump did this all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the hiding places where his predecessors in the presidential dock took refuge .
He can not claim , as Johnson could , that any violation of the law was on a narrow technicality .
By way of confirmation , the non-partisan Government Accountability Office ruled on Thursday that the White House broke the law when it froze funding to Ukraine , cash whose release had been legally mandated by Congress .
As it happens , the US ’ s founders did not require a formal or specific law to be broken for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conceived of “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” much more broadly : merely to break the public trust should merit removal .
But as a matter of political reality , impeachment has tended to come down to a balder question : has a law been broken ?
And with Trump the answer could not be louder or clearer .
The Trump case is more straightforward than the others in another sense , too .
The Johnson episode was all about race , about a nation emerging from the smoking ruins of a civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not over ; Johnson ’ s trial simply opened up a new front .
With Clinton , it ’ s tempting to see his impeachment as a battle in the gender wars , a precursor of # metoo , turning on issues of power imbalance and consent .
More accurately , given that Clinton ’ s Republican prosecutors were hardly motivated by feminist outrage , it was a climax of a contest that had been raging since Clinton first ran for president , if not before : a culture war in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moral permissiveness of the 1960s , dodging the draft and smoking dope ( even if he didn ’ t inhale ) .
His impeachment was the culmination of a near-decade-long effort to suggest that Clinton ’ s character alone made him unfit for the White House and therefore an illegitimate president .
You could probably build an impeachment case against Trump that rested on either race or gender .
On the former , his record of white supremacism is ample , dating back to the discrimination cases brought against him as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through to his proposed ban on all Muslims entering the US , to his baiting of African-American public figures and praising of neo-Nazis as “ very fine people ” .
On gender , this is a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault and who bragged of doing so .
Similarly , there are those who see Trump , like Johnson or Clinton before him , as an essentially illegitimate occupant of the White House , not least because in 2016 he won 3m fewer votes than his defeated opponent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump does not relate to , or depend on , any of that .
You could strip all of that wider context away , and the charges against Trump would still stand .
That is not true of Johnson or Clinton .
“ This is a case like no other and Trump is a president like no other , ” says Adam Smith , professor of US political history at Oxford .
Perhaps the closest precedent is the president who quit rather than be impeached and removed .
Like Trump , Richard Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that went way beyond a technicality .
Like Trump , Nixon stonewalled Congress ’ s investigation of his crimes , though , as Feldman writes : “ Nixon engaged in far less obstruction than Trump.
” But unlike Trump , Nixon lived in a time when partisanship did not blind members of the House and Senate to their constitutional , even patriotic , duty .
Trump is guiltier than his predecessors – but he ’ s also far , far luckier .

The trial of Donald Trump, which opens in earnest on Tuesday, is the third presidential impeachment in US history – and the most legitimate. For the first time, an American president will face the ultimate sanction not because he walked into a legal trap set by his opponents, or because of some broader, underlying rift in society, but because of the actual “high crimes and misdemeanors” on the charge sheet. Legally, the Senate has never confronted a stronger case for the removal of a sitting president than the one it is about to hear.
Impeachment tends to come down to a bald question: has a law been broken? With Trump the answer could not be clearer
Of course, none of this means that Trump is about to be removed. But it is worth bearing in mind, as you watch 53 Republican members of the Senate – now remade as a jury, every senator having sworn an oath to “do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws” – echo the vocabulary of the accused and blithely dismiss the whole business as a “hoax” or “witch-hunt”.
They’re wrong because Trump’s is the standout case in a category of notoriety that is already vanishingly small. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached – in effect, indicted – by the US House of Representatives, back in 1868. No one would want to defend Johnson or his politics. He was a foul-mouthed, racist drunk, the accidental president who’d only been vice-president for a few weeks when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, leaving him in the top job. Johnson was only ever meant to be a symbolic number two: the governor of Tennessee who until a year earlier had been a slave owner, he’d been picked by Lincoln as a gesture of reconciliation towards the slave-owning south defeated in the civil war. With Lincoln dead, Johnson found himself facing a Congress determined to grant at least a modicum of rights to 4 million former slaves. Johnson was bent on thwarting that effort at every turn.
Still, you don’t have to feel a shred of sympathy for Johnson to recognise that his foes on Capitol Hill set for him what the constitutional law expert, Noah Feldman, calls “an impeachment trap”. They passed a law compelling him to keep in post appointees of his predecessor – including officials willing to grant basic liberties to newly freed black Americans. Congress even wrote into law that any violation would constitute a “high misdemeanor”, ensuring that such a violation would automatically count as an impeachable offence. So when Johnson sacked his secretary of war, he promptly walked right into the impeachment trap.
The circumstances for the second impeachee, Bill Clinton, were rather different, but he, too, could claim entrapment. Remember, he was asked under oath whether he had had a sexual relationship with the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. His inquisitors knew what he did not: that they had DNA evidence proving just such a relationship. Clinton denied it, lying under oath. He had walked into a perjury trap, and it was for that crime that he was tried in the Senate more than 20 years ago.
No such chicanery was necessary to ensnare Trump. Of his own volition and requiring no prodding, he made that fateful 25 July phone call to the president of Ukraine in which he pressured him to dig up dirt on Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, on pain of losing $400m in essential military aid or forfeiting a coveted meeting at the White House. That is as clear an abuse of power as it is possible to imagine, using the muscle of the US government for personal gain. It took no canny drafting of laws or sneaky questioning under oath. Unlike Johnson and Clinton, Trump did this all by himself.
01:33 Senators are sworn in as Trump's impeachment trial gets under way – video
Trump has no access to the hiding places where his predecessors in the presidential dock took refuge. He cannot claim, as Johnson could, that any violation of the law was on a narrow technicality. By way of confirmation, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office ruled on Thursday that the White House broke the law when it froze funding to Ukraine, cash whose release had been legally mandated by Congress.
As it happens, the US’s founders did not require a formal or specific law to be broken for a president to be impeached. They conceived of “high crimes and misdemeanors” much more broadly: merely to break the public trust should merit removal. But as a matter of political reality, impeachment has tended to come down to a balder question: has a law been broken? And with Trump the answer could not be louder or clearer.
The Trump case is more straightforward than the others in another sense, too. The Johnson episode was all about race, about a nation emerging from the smoking ruins of a civil war fought over slavery. That argument was not over; Johnson’s trial simply opened up a new front.
With Clinton, it’s tempting to see his impeachment as a battle in the gender wars, a precursor of #metoo, turning on issues of power imbalance and consent. More accurately, given that Clinton’s Republican prosecutors were hardly motivated by feminist outrage, it was a climax of a contest that had been raging since Clinton first ran for president, if not before: a culture war in which Clinton was cast as the embodiment of the moral permissiveness of the 1960s, dodging the draft and smoking dope (even if he didn’t inhale). His impeachment was the culmination of a near-decade-long effort to suggest that Clinton’s character alone made him unfit for the White House and therefore an illegitimate president.
You could probably build an impeachment case against Trump that rested on either race or gender. On the former, his record of white supremacism is ample, dating back to the discrimination cases brought against him as a New York landlord in the 1970s, through to his proposed ban on all Muslims entering the US, to his baiting of African-American public figures and praising of neo-Nazis as “very fine people”. On gender, this is a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault and who bragged of doing so. Similarly, there are those who see Trump, like Johnson or Clinton before him, as an essentially illegitimate occupant of the White House, not least because in 2016 he won 3m fewer votes than his defeated opponent.
And yet the actual impeachment case against Trump does not relate to, or depend on, any of that. You could strip all of that wider context away, and the charges against Trump would still stand. That is not true of Johnson or Clinton. “This is a case like no other and Trump is a president like no other,” says Adam Smith, professor of US political history at Oxford.
Perhaps the closest precedent is the president who quit rather than be impeached and removed. Like Trump, Richard Nixon was guilty of an abuse of power that went way beyond a technicality. Like Trump, Nixon stonewalled Congress’s investigation of his crimes, though, as Feldman writes: “Nixon engaged in far less obstruction than Trump.” But unlike Trump, Nixon lived in a time when partisanship did not blind members of the House and Senate to their constitutional, even patriotic, duty. Trump is guiltier than his predecessors – but he’s also far, far luckier.


theguardian--2020-01-16--Inside Trump's tent immigration courts that turn away thousands of asylum seekers

Underneath a white tarpaulin roof , behind razor wire and barking police dogs , Wendy Ramírez Penosa and her two teenage sons stood before an immigration judge sitting 30 miles ( 48km ) away from them .
Through tears , they begged the court to keep them safe .
“ My children have been threatened with kidnap , ” Ramírez said through a translator on Monday afternoon , describing threats both in Mexico and in Honduras , her home country .
“ They said I would be forced to work in a brothel.
” “ I don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They killed my father [ in Honduras ] .
That is why we are fleeing.
” Ramírez was pleading her case at one of Donald Trump ’ s newly built tent immigration courts , erected a few feet from the US-Mexico border in Brownsville , Texas .
These makeshift courts , constructed last September , have been inaccessible to the public , but play a central role in the president ’ s “ Remain in Mexico ” ( Migrant Protection Protocols ) policy , which advocates describe as an attempt to curtail the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sending migrants back to Mexico as their cases are processed .
Of the 56,000 cases brought under MPP only 117 , or 0.2 % of cases , have so far led to asylum relief for applicants , according to data from a monitoring project at Syracuse University .
On Tuesday , House Democrats launched an investigation into the process , describing it as “ a dangerously flawed policy that threatens the health and safety of legitimate asylum seekers – including women , children , and families ” that “ should be abandoned ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( EOIR ) , which is the arm of the justice department overseeing immigration court , declined to answer certain questions for this report , citing “ pending litigation ” .
They referred other questions to the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) who did not respond despite multiple requests .
The Guardian is one of the first media organizations to observe proceedings in Brownsville after the tent courts here , and others in Laredo , were opened to the public at the end of last week .
The court in Brownsville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is built on a parking lot next to a US Customs port of entry that is attached to a bridge over the Rio Grande , which links the US to Mexico .
Asylum seekers are bussed in by DHS officials , and line up , single file along floors covered in artificial grass , many holding babies and toddlers , and are then ushered into a courtroom under guard .
They are sent back to Mexico after the proceedings , often carrying belongings in clear plastic bags .
Judge Barbara Cigarroa appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screen inside a portable building that was listed as Courtroom C. The judge , softly focused on the monitor , sat at an immigration court in the city of Port Isabel .
The voice of a government lawyer was audible on the link up , but their face could not be seen by the roughly 23 asylum seekers present for the afternoon session .
“ I ’ m sorry to hear that , ” said Cigarroa to Ramírez as she articulated her fears .
The judge encouraged her to find an attorney to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like the vast majority of those seeking asylum in the US , Ramírez could not afford one – of the 5,596 cases completed at this court in Brownsville , just 81 people had a lawyer , according to public records .
“ I prefer that you send me back to Honduras and my children to the US , ” she said .
“ Even if they kill me , I don ’ t care .
As long as my boys are OK. ” The judge set her next hearing date for 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her and her children after they articulated their fears of returning to Mexico .
Advocates suggest anecdotally that around a third of asylum seekers in these courts express fears of returning to Mexico , where extortion and threats from cartels in border areas is common .
But for those without attorneys , it is unheard of to be taken out of the Remain in Mexico program and held in the US despite articulation of fears , said Andrew Udelsman , a legal fellow at the Texas Civil Rights Project who is monitoring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this policy [ MPP ] is absolutely to deter people from seeking asylum , making it as inconvenient , difficult and dangerous as possible , ” Udelsman said .
“ This is the next development on from the child separation policy – designed to deter people from coming to this country.
” The justice department and DHS would not comment on Ramírez ’ s case and did not provide the numbers of asylum seekers in the Remain in Mexico program articulating fears of return .
The Guardian has been unable to verify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other asylum seekers who articulated fears of returning to Mexico – two others citing kidnap or forced prostitution threats – were returned to Mexico after their hearings on Monday .
Although the tent courts are now technically open to the public , their operations remain shrouded in opacity .
The Guardian was not allowed to move between courtrooms during a visit on Monday , and was escorted into a single public gallery by private security guards .
The Guardian was earlier held in a separate waiting area , under guard , away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was blocked from entering the facility on Monday because he brought a pen and paper , which an armed Department of Homeland Security police officer outside the facility said was a security risk .
The Guardian was allowed to enter with stationary , but was prevented from viewing the court ’ s docket list , meaning the spelling of names and the number of cases before the courts could not be verified .
Only initial hearings , known as Master Calendars , were open to the public , leaving merits hearings – where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaccessible .
Across the Rio Grande , in the Mexican town of Matamoros , an encampment of about 2,500 asylum seekers has been erected since the start of the policy .
The hundreds of tents are home to mostly central Americans waiting for their days in court .
Aid has been slow to arrive here , and there remains no official Mexican or US government presence .
Instead , volunteers and NGOs have established makeshift schools , legal centers , sanitation services and a medical clinic offering support to migrants .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seekers themselves .
Dr Dairon Rojas , a 28-year-old Cuban seeking asylum , works as a general practitioner as he awaits his next court hearing on 27 February .
He said there remain ongoing health concerns related to the spread of bacterial infections due to the closed quarter living conditions .
“ Sometimes we don ’ t have everything a patient needs .
Blood tests .
X-rays .
We can ’ t do that here , ” he said , adding that complicated cases are referred to Mexican health authorities .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rojas continued to worry about his own case as well .
“ You can ’ t imagine the stress , ” he said .
“ All I want is to live and work in the US .
”

Oliver Laughland in Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros, Tamaulipas

Underneath a white tarpaulin roof, behind razor wire and barking police dogs, Wendy Ramírez Penosa and her two teenage sons stood before an immigration judge sitting 30 miles (48km) away from them. Through tears, they begged the court to keep them safe.
“My children have been threatened with kidnap,” Ramírez said through a translator on Monday afternoon, describing threats both in Mexico and in Honduras, her home country. “They said I would be forced to work in a brothel.”
“I don’t want to be taken back to Mexico. They killed my father [in Honduras]. That is why we are fleeing.”
Ramírez was pleading her case at one of Donald Trump’s newly built tent immigration courts, erected a few feet from the US-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas. These makeshift courts, constructed last September, have been inaccessible to the public, but play a central role in the president’s “Remain in Mexico” (Migrant Protection Protocols) policy, which advocates describe as an attempt to curtail the right to asylum in the US by sending migrants back to Mexico as their cases are processed.
The immigration court tents in Laredo, Texas. Photograph: Veronica Cardenas/Reuters
Of the 56,000 cases brought under MPP only 117, or 0.2% of cases, have so far led to asylum relief for applicants, according to data from a monitoring project at Syracuse University. On Tuesday, House Democrats launched an investigation into the process, describing it as “a dangerously flawed policy that threatens the health and safety of legitimate asylum seekers – including women, children, and families” that “should be abandoned”.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the arm of the justice department overseeing immigration court, declined to answer certain questions for this report, citing “pending litigation”. They referred other questions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who did not respond despite multiple requests.
The Guardian is one of the first media organizations to observe proceedings in Brownsville after the tent courts here, and others in Laredo, were opened to the public at the end of last week.
The court in Brownsville, a sprawling complex of white tents, is built on a parking lot next to a US Customs port of entry that is attached to a bridge over the Rio Grande, which links the US to Mexico. Asylum seekers are bussed in by DHS officials, and line up, single file along floors covered in artificial grass, many holding babies and toddlers, and are then ushered into a courtroom under guard. They are sent back to Mexico after the proceedings, often carrying belongings in clear plastic bags.
Judge Barbara Cigarroa appeared via video link on a large TV screen inside a portable building that was listed as Courtroom C. The judge, softly focused on the monitor, sat at an immigration court in the city of Port Isabel. The voice of a government lawyer was audible on the link up, but their face could not be seen by the roughly 23 asylum seekers present for the afternoon session.
“I’m sorry to hear that,” said Cigarroa to Ramírez as she articulated her fears. The judge encouraged her to find an attorney to assist with her asylum application.
But, like the vast majority of those seeking asylum in the US, Ramírez could not afford one – of the 5,596 cases completed at this court in Brownsville, just 81 people had a lawyer, according to public records.
“I prefer that you send me back to Honduras and my children to the US,” she said. “Even if they kill me, I don’t care. As long as my boys are OK.”
Of the 56,000 cases brought under Migrant Protection Protocol, only 117 have resulted in asylum relief for applicants. Photograph: Eric Gay/Associated Press
The judge set her next hearing date for 10 March, and instructed DHS to interview her and her children after they articulated their fears of returning to Mexico.
Advocates suggest anecdotally that around a third of asylum seekers in these courts express fears of returning to Mexico, where extortion and threats from cartels in border areas is common. But for those without attorneys, it is unheard of to be taken out of the Remain in Mexico program and held in the US despite articulation of fears, said Andrew Udelsman, a legal fellow at the Texas Civil Rights Project who is monitoring the Brownsville tent court.
“The purpose of this policy [MPP] is absolutely to deter people from seeking asylum, making it as inconvenient, difficult and dangerous as possible,” Udelsman said. “This is the next development on from the child separation policy – designed to deter people from coming to this country.”
The justice department and DHS would not comment on Ramírez’s case and did not provide the numbers of asylum seekers in the Remain in Mexico program articulating fears of return. The Guardian has been unable to verify if Ramírez, and at least six other asylum seekers who articulated fears of returning to Mexico – two others citing kidnap or forced prostitution threats – were returned to Mexico after their hearings on Monday.
Although the tent courts are now technically open to the public, their operations remain shrouded in opacity.
The Guardian was not allowed to move between courtrooms during a visit on Monday, and was escorted into a single public gallery by private security guards. The Guardian was earlier held in a separate waiting area, under guard, away from other members of the public. Udelsman was blocked from entering the facility on Monday because he brought a pen and paper, which an armed Department of Homeland Security police officer outside the facility said was a security risk.
The Guardian was allowed to enter with stationary, but was prevented from viewing the court’s docket list, meaning the spelling of names and the number of cases before the courts could not be verified. Only initial hearings, known as Master Calendars, were open to the public, leaving merits hearings – where an asylum case is finally decided – inaccessible.
Across the Rio Grande, in the Mexican town of Matamoros, an encampment of about 2,500 asylum seekers has been erected since the start of the policy.
Dr Dairon Rojas, a 28 year-old Cuban seeking asylum, works in a makeshift medical clinic in an encampment in Matamoros, Mexico. Photograph: Oliver Laughland/The Guardian
The hundreds of tents are home to mostly central Americans waiting for their days in court. Aid has been slow to arrive here, and there remains no official Mexican or US government presence. Instead, volunteers and NGOs have established makeshift schools, legal centers, sanitation services and a medical clinic offering support to migrants. Many of these facilities are being staffed by asylum seekers themselves.
Dr Dairon Rojas, a 28-year-old Cuban seeking asylum, works as a general practitioner as he awaits his next court hearing on 27 February. He said there remain ongoing health concerns related to the spread of bacterial infections due to the closed quarter living conditions.
“Sometimes we don’t have everything a patient needs. Blood tests. X-rays. We can’t do that here,” he said, adding that complicated cases are referred to Mexican health authorities.
But, at the back of his mind, Rojas continued to worry about his own case as well.
“You can’t imagine the stress,” he said. “All I want is to live and work in the US.”