theguardian--2020-01-23--Impeachment: Democrats say conduct is 'not America first, but Trump first'

Donald Trump put his personal political interests ahead of his country ’ s national security and free and fair elections , prosecutors at his impeachment trial on Capitol Hill said on Thursday , telling US senators : “ This conduct is not ‘ America first ’ .
It is Donald Trump first.
” Democratic impeachment managers , who are acting as the prosecutors bringing the case for Trump ’ s removal from office , were spending a second day in Washington laying out their case against Trump in only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history .
Jerry Nadler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives ’ judiciary committee , argued that Trump should be convicted of two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden last year , and obstructing an investigation into the affair .
“ This presidential stonewalling of Congress is unprecedented in the 238-year history of our constitutional republic , ” Nadler told the Senate .
“ It puts even President [ Richard ] Nixon to shame.
” Democrats have been hammering against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
A rotation of managers on the Senate floor , led by Adam Schiff of California , have presented the 100 senators with video testimony from public hearings last month interwoven with recently unearthed evidence and analysis detailing Trump ’ s scheme .
Republicans , for their part , have voted against taking witness testimony while complaining the trial was bringing no new evidence to light , and multiple Republicans called on Thursday for the testimony of Hunter Biden , the former vice-president ’ s son once employed by a Ukrainian gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers sought to expose the hypocrisy , as they framed it , in Trump ’ s defense by using Republicans ’ own past words against them .
Nadler played archival clips of Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz , a member of Trump ’ s legal team , arguing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton that an impeachable “ abuse of power ” need not be based on an underlying criminal offense .
That is the mainstream view of constitutional scholars , but not Trump ’ s current defense argument .
To argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian hacking in the 2016 election was “ far-fetched and crazy ” , in the words of manager Silvia Garcia of Texas , the managers played video of Trump ’ s FBI director , Christopher Wray ; Trump ’ s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert ; and Trump ’ s former top Russia expert Fiona Hill , debunking the conspiracy theory .
“ He must not remain in power one moment longer , ” Nadler said of Trump .
In one video clip from last month ’ s House impeachment hearings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor at the University of North Carolina , testified : “ I just want to stress that if what we ’ re talking about is not impeachable , then nothing is impeachable .
This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created the constitution , including impeachment , to protect against.
” Democratic House impeachment managers have a total of 24 hours over three days , which makes it likely that their case will continue into Friday .
But so far , all the signs are that Republicans are unmoved .
Even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday , praised by the Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , as a “ tour de force ” , the Republicans ’ body language in the Senate chamber and public statements outside it expressed weariness and disbelief .
“ I think it ’ s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden and we probably need to call Joe Biden , ” Josh Hawley , a Republican senator from Missouri , said during a break on Thursday .
“ Based on the House managers ’ presentation today , I think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the former vice-president if indeed we call witnesses.
” Jay Sekulow , a leader of Trump ’ s legal team , argued that nothing Democrats had said had changed the disposition of the case .
He declined to comment on whether Trump ’ s team would take all of its allotted 24 hours to respond .
“ We ’ re going to use a sufficient amount of time , to not only defend our case but to point out the inconsistencies in their case , ” Sekulow said .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clock out.
” Trump is not expected to appear at his own congressional trial .
Schumer accused Republicans of “ inventing shiny objects and so-called outrages ” to deflect media and public attention from the fairness of the trial .
The smooth rollout of the Democratic case had just one hiccup , shortly before the dinner break , when Schiff teed up a video clip of testimony by national security aide Alexander Vindman – but the video did not play .
“ Let ’ s hear Colonel Vindman , ” Schiff said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have that ?
Let ’ s not hear Colonel Vindman .
We ’ ve heard enough from Colonel Vindman.
” Trump has directed current and former administration officials , including the secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , and the former national security adviser John Bolton , not to testify or provide documents .
But a Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that 72 % of Americans – including 84 % of Democrats and 69 % of Republicans – want to see new witnesses testify in the trial .
Schiff and other Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressed the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , to investigate Biden , a leading 2020 Democratic presidential contender , and Biden ’ s son on baseless corruption charges as well as a discredited theory that Ukraine , not Russia , meddled in the 2016 presidential election .
Nearly $ 400m in US military aid to Ukraine was temporarily frozen .
Trump seems almost certain to be acquitted by the 100-member Senate , where there are 53 Republicans and where a two-thirds majority of those present is needed to convict and remove him from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial remains uncertain .

David Smith in Washington and Tom McCarthy in New York

In a stirring oration to conclude the third full day of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, the lead prosecutor Adam Schiff told senators that in the United States, “right matters” and “you know that what he did was not right”.
After about nine hours of argumentation in which Democrats methodically presented evidence that Trump had committed an abuse of power by pressuring Ukraine for his personal political benefit, Schiff urged the Senate to remove Trump from office.
“You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” said Schiff. “You can only trust this president to do what’s right for Donald Trump.”
Democratic impeachment managers, who are acting as the prosecutors bringing the case for Trump’s removal from office, were spending a third day in Washington laying out their case against Trump in only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history.
Jerry Nadler, the chair of the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee, argued that Trump should be convicted of two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden last year, and obstructing an investigation into the affair.
Quoting national security aide Col Alexander Vindman, who testified in November in public hearings before the intelligence committee and whose family were Soviet refugees, Schiff said that “if right doesn’t matter, we’re lost”.
“You know that what he did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country, that Colonel Vindman’s father came from, that my great-grandfather came from, that some of you may come from. But here right is supposed to matter.”
Democrats have been hammering against extreme Republican skepticism of the case against Trump. A rotation of managers on the Senate floor, led by Schiff of California, have presented the 100 senators with video testimony from public hearings last month interwoven with recently unearthed evidence and analysis detailing Trump’s scheme.
Republicans, for their part, have voted against taking witness testimony while complaining the trial was bringing no new evidence to light, and multiple Republicans called on Thursday for the testimony of Hunter Biden, the former vice-president’s son once employed by a Ukrainian gas company.
Expressing frustration with the length and what they said was the repetitiousness of the Democrats’ case, Republican senators told reporters during a break that it was time to hear the other side.
“We are ready for the president’s team to put their defense on. We have heard plenty from the House now,” said Republican Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming. “I am ready to hear from the president’s defense.”
Trump’s defense could get under way as soon as Saturday. Jay Sekulow, a lead lawyer on the defense team, did not offer a specific reply to reporters’ questions about the arguments they would make. “We will refute their case, and we will present our case,” Sekulow said.
On Thursday, the impeachment managers sought to expose the hypocrisy, as they framed it, in Trump’s defense by using Republicans’ own past words against them.
Nadler played archival clips of Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team, arguing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton that an impeachable “abuse of power” need not be based on an underlying criminal offense. That is the mainstream view of constitutional scholars, but not Trump’s current defense argument.
To argue that Trump’s obsession with supposed Ukrainian hacking in the 2016 election was “far-fetched and crazy”, in the words of manager Silvia Garcia of Texas, the managers played video of Trump’s FBI director, Christopher Wray; Trump’s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert; and Trump’s former top Russia expert Fiona Hill, debunking the conspiracy theory.
“He must not remain in power one moment longer,” Nadler said of Trump.
Taking a swipe at one of Trump’s campaign slogans, Nadler added: “This conduct is not ‘America first’. It is Donald Trump first. Donald Trump swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws – that means putting the nation’s interests above his own. And the president has repeatedly, flagrantly violated his oath.”
Democratic House impeachment managers have a total of 24 hours over three days, which makes it likely that their case will continue into Friday.
But so far, all the signs are that Republicans are unmoved. Even as Schiff presented a meticulous and lengthy narrative on Wednesday, praised by the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, as a “tour de force”, the Republicans’ body language in the Senate chamber and public statements outside it expressed weariness and disbelief.
“I think it’s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden and we probably need to call Joe Biden,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, said during a break on Thursday. “Based on the House managers’ presentation today, I think we probably are going to need to hear from the former vice-president if indeed we call witnesses.”
Sekulow argued that nothing Democrats had said had changed the disposition of the case. He declined to comment on whether Trump’s team would take all of its allotted 24 hours to respond.
“We’re going to use a sufficient amount of time, to not only defend our case but to point out the inconsistencies in their case,” Sekulow said. “We’re not going to try to run the clock out.” Trump is not expected to appear at his own congressional trial.
The smooth rollout of the Democratic case had just one hiccup, shortly before the dinner break, when Schiff teed up a video clip of testimony by national security aide Alexander Vindman – but the video did not play.
“Let’s hear Colonel Vindman,” Schiff said. “No? We don’t have that? Let’s not hear Colonel Vindman. We’ve heard enough from Colonel Vindman.”
Trump has directed current and former administration officials, including the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the former national security adviser John Bolton, not to testify or provide documents. But a Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that 72% of Americans – including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans – want to see new witnesses testify in the trial.
Schiff and other Democrats have told how Trump and his aides pressed the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to investigate Biden, a leading 2020 Democratic presidential contender, and Biden’s son on baseless corruption charges as well as a discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 presidential election. Nearly $400m in US military aid to Ukraine was temporarily frozen.
Trump seems almost certain to be acquitted by the 100-member Senate, where there are 53 Republicans and where a two-thirds majority of those present is needed to convict and remove him from office. But the political impact of the trial remains uncertain.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Trump's new visa rules target pregnant women travelling to US to give birth

The Trump administration has published new visa rules aimed at restricting pregnant women travelling to the United States to give birth so their children can have US citizenship , a practice known as “ birth tourism ” .
Applicants will be denied tourist visas if they are determined by consular officers to be coming to the US primarily to give birth , according to the rules in the Federal Register .
They will have to prove they are traveling to the US because they have a medical need and not just because they want to give birth here .
Children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatically granted American citizenship , a right guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution .
The practice of traveling to the US to give birth is fundamentally legal , although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion .
And women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals .
Those with medical needs will be treated like other foreigners coming to the US for medical treatment and must prove they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – including transportation and living expenses .
“ Closing this glaring immigration loophole will combat these endemic abuses and ultimately protect the United States from the national security risks created by this practice , ” the White House press secretary , Stephanie Grisham , said in a statement .
“ It will also defend American taxpayers from having their hard-earned dollars siphoned away to finance the direct and downstream costs associated with birth tourism .
The integrity of American citizenship must be protected.
” The state department “ does not believe that visiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of obtaining US citizenship for a child , by giving birth in the United States – an activity commonly referred to as ‘ birth tourism ’ – is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature , ” according to the new rules , which take effect on Friday .
While the new rules deal specifically with birth tourism , the Trump administration also has turned away pregnant women coming over the US-Mexico border as part of a broader immigration crackdown .
Those women were initially part of a “ vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children who were allowed in , while tens of thousands of other asylum seekers have been returned to Mexico to wait out their cases .
Donald Trump ’ s administration has been restricting all forms of immigration , but recently , Trump has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the issue of birthright citizenship .
The Republican president has railed against the practice and threatened to end it , but scholars and members of his administration have said it ’ s not so easy to do .
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue , but it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant to begin with and whether a woman could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her .
And critics of the new policy say it could put pregnant women at risk .
Consular officers do not have the right to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so .
But they would still have to determine whether a visa applicant would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth .
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in the US and abroad .
Companies take out advertisements and charge up to $ 80,000 to facilitate the practice , offering hotel rooms and medical care .
Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the US .
The US has been cracking down on the practice since before Trump took office .
“ An entire ‘ birth tourism ’ industry has evolved to assist pregnant women from other countries to come to the United States to obtain US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States , and thereby entitle their children to the benefits of US citizenship , ” according to the state department rules .
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the US specifically to give birth .
The Center for Immigration Studies , a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws , estimated that in 2012 about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the US and then left the country .
“ This rule will help eliminate the criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The recent federal indictments describe birth tourism schemes in which foreign nationals applied for visitor visas to come to the United States and lied to consular officers about the duration of their trips , where they would stay , and their purpose of travel .
”

The Trump administration has published new visa rules aimed at restricting pregnant women travelling to the United States to give birth so their children can have US citizenship, a practice known as “birth tourism”.
Applicants will be denied tourist visas if they are determined by consular officers to be coming to the US primarily to give birth, according to the rules in the Federal Register. They will have to prove they are traveling to the US because they have a medical need and not just because they want to give birth here.
Children who are born in the US are automatically granted American citizenship, a right guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution.
The practice of traveling to the US to give birth is fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion. And women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals.
Those with medical needs will be treated like other foreigners coming to the US for medical treatment and must prove they have the money to pay for it – including transportation and living expenses.
“Closing this glaring immigration loophole will combat these endemic abuses and ultimately protect the United States from the national security risks created by this practice,” the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement.
“It will also defend American taxpayers from having their hard-earned dollars siphoned away to finance the direct and downstream costs associated with birth tourism. The integrity of American citizenship must be protected.”
The state department “does not believe that visiting the United States for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the United States – an activity commonly referred to as ‘birth tourism’ – is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature,” according to the new rules, which take effect on Friday.
While the new rules deal specifically with birth tourism, the Trump administration also has turned away pregnant women coming over the US-Mexico border as part of a broader immigration crackdown. Those women were initially part of a “vulnerable” group that included others like small children who were allowed in, while tens of thousands of other asylum seekers have been returned to Mexico to wait out their cases.
Donald Trump’s administration has been restricting all forms of immigration, but recently, Trump has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the issue of birthright citizenship. The Republican president has railed against the practice and threatened to end it, but scholars and members of his administration have said it’s not so easy to do.
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant women is one way to get at the issue, but it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant to begin with and whether a woman could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her.
And critics of the new policy say it could put pregnant women at risk.
Consular officers do not have the right to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so. But they would still have to determine whether a visa applicant would be coming to the US primarily to give birth.
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in the US and abroad. Companies take out advertisements and charge up to $80,000 to facilitate the practice, offering hotel rooms and medical care. Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the US.
The US has been cracking down on the practice since before Trump took office.
“An entire ‘birth tourism’ industry has evolved to assist pregnant women from other countries to come to the United States to obtain US citizenship for their children by giving birth in the United States, and thereby entitle their children to the benefits of US citizenship,” according to the state department rules.
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the US specifically to give birth. The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws, estimated that in 2012 about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the US and then left the country.
“This rule will help eliminate the criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry,” according to the rules. “The recent federal indictments describe birth tourism schemes in which foreign nationals applied for visitor visas to come to the United States and lied to consular officers about the duration of their trips, where they would stay, and their purpose of travel.”


theguardian--2020-01-23--Trump administration strips pollution safeguards from drinking water sources

The Trump administration has completed its rollback of environmental protections for streams , wetland and other bodies of water , a process that has stripped pollution safeguards from drinking water sources used by around a third of all Americans .
Clean water protections strengthened under the Obama administration have long been targeted by Donald Trump , who has called it a “ very destructive and horrible rule ” .
Trump has been backed by ranchers , farming groups and golf course operators , who claim the so-called “ Water of the United States ” ( Wotus ) rule impinged upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule was repealed last year and on Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) finalized a weakened replacement that removes millions of miles of streams and around half of America ’ s wetlands from federal oversight , potentially allowing pesticides and other pollutants to be dumped into them without penalty .
The move has dismayed former EPA staff who worked on the expansion of protections to ephemeral streams that supply drinking water to an estimated 117 million people in the US .
“ The new rule is scientifically indefensible and socially unjust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was scientific director of the EPA ’ s office of water for three decades before departing in 2017 .
“ This EPA ’ s Wotus definition , which will limit federal water quality protections to a very small set of waters and wetlands , will result in the impairment of drinking water , fisheries and flood control for communities throughout the US.
” The Trump administration had promised the demise of the water rule to industry groups that lobbied against what they saw as costly federal overreach .
“ This new rule will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies that site and build infrastructure that delivers essential energy to America ’ s communities , ” said Karen Harbert , chief executive of the American Gas Association .
But opponents of the repeal point out that the replacement regime not only scraps the Obama-era rule but also reverses protections reaching back to the 1972 Clean Water Act , such as requirements that landowners seek permits that the EPA considers on a case-by-case basis .
The new , far narrower , definition of water protections will maintain safeguards for major rivers such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not short-lived streams that feed into them after it rains or snow melts .
About 60 % of streams in the US are dry for part of the year but then connect to large rivers following rainfall .
Wetlands not situated next to large rivers will also be excluded from protections .
People living in the western US are set to be particularly affected by the new rule , with ephemeral streams making up around 89 % of Nevada ’ s stream miles and 94 % of Arizona ’ s , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many as 75 endangered species dependent on temporary streams will be imperilled by the move , while any degradation of wetlands would also harm wildlife and worsen the climate crisis by lessening their ability to store carbon .
Trump told the World Economic Forum at Davos this week that the US has “ among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth ” , despite widespread contamination with chemicals such as PFAS and neurotoxins such as lead in Americans ’ water .
The Trump administration has dismantled about 100 environmental rules while in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on mining companies dumping their waste into rivers .
“ The ‘ dirty water rule ’ will put clean drinking water for tens of millions of people at risk , especially the low-income communities and communities of colour already disproportionately impacted by polluted water , ” said Madeleine Foote , deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters .
“ Clean , safe drinking water is a basic human right and we should be doing more to protect our water resources , not less , ” she added .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the obligations of farmers , ranchers and other landowners in their requirements to protect water quality in the US , ” said Catherine Kling , an environmental economist at Cornell University .
“ This will lower regulatory costs to that group of Americans .
But there are costs to the environment that will be borne by other Americans.
” These include , Kling said , the loss of healthy drinking water , algal blooms that sicken swimmers and pets and reduced value of properties near waterways .

The Trump administration has completed its rollback of environmental protections for streams, wetland and other bodies of water, a process that has stripped pollution safeguards from drinking water sources used by around a third of all Americans.
Clean water protections strengthened under the Obama administration have long been targeted by Donald Trump, who has called it a “very destructive and horrible rule”.
Trump has been backed by ranchers, farming groups and golf course operators, who claim the so-called “Water of the United States” (Wotus) rule impinged upon landowners’ rights.
The Obama-era water rule was repealed last year and on Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a weakened replacement that removes millions of miles of streams and around half of America’s wetlands from federal oversight, potentially allowing pesticides and other pollutants to be dumped into them without penalty.
The move has dismayed former EPA staff who worked on the expansion of protections to ephemeral streams that supply drinking water to an estimated 117 million people in the US.
“The new rule is scientifically indefensible and socially unjust,” said Betsy Southerland, who was scientific director of the EPA’s office of water for three decades before departing in 2017.
“This EPA’s Wotus definition, which will limit federal water quality protections to a very small set of waters and wetlands, will result in the impairment of drinking water, fisheries and flood control for communities throughout the US.”
The Trump administration had promised the demise of the water rule to industry groups that lobbied against what they saw as costly federal overreach. “This new rule will provide much-needed clarity and regulatory certainty for companies that site and build infrastructure that delivers essential energy to America’s communities,” said Karen Harbert, chief executive of the American Gas Association.
But opponents of the repeal point out that the replacement regime not only scraps the Obama-era rule but also reverses protections reaching back to the 1972 Clean Water Act, such as requirements that landowners seek permits that the EPA considers on a case-by-case basis.
The new, far narrower, definition of water protections will maintain safeguards for major rivers such as the Mississippi River and the Colorado River but not short-lived streams that feed into them after it rains or snow melts. About 60% of streams in the US are dry for part of the year but then connect to large rivers following rainfall. Wetlands not situated next to large rivers will also be excluded from protections.
People living in the western US are set to be particularly affected by the new rule, with ephemeral streams making up around 89% of Nevada’s stream miles and 94% of Arizona’s, for example.
Environmental groups warn that as many as 75 endangered species dependent on temporary streams will be imperilled by the move, while any degradation of wetlands would also harm wildlife and worsen the climate crisis by lessening their ability to store carbon.
Trump told the World Economic Forum at Davos this week that the US has “among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth”, despite widespread contamination with chemicals such as PFAS and neurotoxins such as lead in Americans’ water.
The Trump administration has dismantled about 100 environmental rules while in office, including the reversal of a ban on mining companies dumping their waste into rivers.
“The ‘dirty water rule’ will put clean drinking water for tens of millions of people at risk, especially the low-income communities and communities of colour already disproportionately impacted by polluted water,” said Madeleine Foote, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters.
“Clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right and we should be doing more to protect our water resources, not less,” she added.
Another expert warned of additional risks.
“The goal of the Trump administration rollback is to reduce the obligations of farmers, ranchers and other landowners in their requirements to protect water quality in the US,” said Catherine Kling, an environmental economist at Cornell University.
“This will lower regulatory costs to that group of Americans. But there are costs to the environment that will be borne by other Americans.”
These include, Kling said, the loss of healthy drinking water, algal blooms that sicken swimmers and pets and reduced value of properties near waterways.


theguardian--2020-01-23--Case for impeachment fails to disturb McConnell's sweet dreams of acquittal

He fought .
Oh , how he fought .
But Mitch McConnell ’ s battle with drowsy eyelids was a lost cause .
The 77-year-old senator ’ s head bobbed and drooped .
An alarmed aide sat at his side , powerless , as McConnell surrendered to the arms of Morpheus .
It was 1.40pm on Wednesday and the House impeachment manager Adam Schiff was in full flow , prosecuting the case against Donald Trump .
Over nearly two and a half hours , McConnell would not be the only Republican senator to nod off , yawn , rub their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Schiff , the house was on fire , the republic was in jeopardy and democracy itself was threatened by “ a president who would be king ” .
Yet the response on one side of the aisle was insouciance and somnolence .
Was it mere fatigue , after Tuesday ’ s marathon that had run until nearly 2am ?
Or was it sheer boredom on the part of jurors who have already cleared the accused in their minds and are now just going through the motions ?
The session had begun with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barry Black , in a prayer for the senators .
“ Help them remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle , that words have consequences and that how something is said can be as important as what is said , ” said Black , sporting a bow tie .
“ Give them a civility built upon integrity that brings consistency in their beliefs and actions.
” Then Schiff , chairman of the House of Representatives ’ intelligence committee , stepped up to the podium to lead opening arguments .
Reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binder , he delivered a tour de force that was both epic and intimate , historically sweeping yet highly specific , offering a view from both 30,000 feet and the microscope .
Schiff began by quoting from the founding father Alexander Hamilton in a 1792 letter to George Washington that refers to “ a man unprincipled in private life ” and “ bold in his temper ” who is “ known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty ” and is “ seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the storm and direct the whirlwind ” .
History rhymes .
The California congressman acknowledged the founders ’ flaws but also their genius and prescience , though as the years passed , he noted , it became harder to imagine them as human beings .
“ This is no less true of Alexander Hamilton , notwithstanding his own return to celebrity.
” It was a nod to Hamilton , the unlikely Broadway musical hit about the former treasury secretary .
( The world now awaits Lin-Manuel Miranda ’ s sequel , a rap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ukraine . )
Schiff set out a case painfully familiar to those who have been following the matter ( which is by no means everyone ) .
Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into two discredited allegations that would benefit Trump ’ s 2020 presidential election campaign , he said .
“ When the Ukrainian president did not immediately agree , Trump withheld two official acts to induce the Ukrainian leader to comply – a head of state meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
It was a corrupt scheme to secure foreign help with his re-election – in other words , to cheat.
” Carefully and cleverly , Schiff portrayed a web that has Vladimir Putin has at its centre .
In his version , the infamous Ukraine phone call was not separate and distinct from the Trump-Russia investigation but all of a piece .
“ The military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond , ” he said .
“ America has an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Senate was shown , on video screens , clips including Trump the candidate urging Russia to find Hillary Clinton ’ s hacked emails and the former White House expert Fiona Hill warning against the repetition of Russia propaganda talking points about a Ukrainian computer server – her accent from the English town of Bishop Auckland resounding in the chamber .
Another clip was of Mick Mulvaney , acting White House chief of staff , declaring : “ I have news for everybody .
Get over it .
There ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff commented : “ Should we just ‘ get over it ’ ?
Is that what we ’ ve come to ?
I hope and pray the answer is no.
” Unless Trump was held accountable and removed from office , he warned , the next president mighty simply say : “ Just get over it .
I ’ m just doing what Donald Trump did .
Just get over it.
” Above all , Schiff made a masterly plea for the soul of the nation .
He entreated senators to put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation had to fight anew for democracy and freedom .
“ If we don ’ t stand up to this peril today , we will write the history of our decline with our own hand.
” Watching from afar , David Axelrod , former strategist for Barack Obama , tweeted : “ Devastating , epic presentation by @ RepAdamSchiff to open trial .
Will it matter ?
” He might as well have asked if facts matter .
Think of Schiff as Clarence Darrow , a legal maestro who , at the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenged a Tennessee state law that banned the teaching of evolution .
He was opposed by a defender of biblical creationism .
He lost .
Nearly a century later , the Republican defence appears to be based on blind faith in Trump and the verdict on his conduct is preordained .
As Schiff went on , McConnell , the Senate majority leader , nodded off a few times .
The aide at his side wondered what to do while remaining tactful , eventually summoning a younger staffer to place a glass of water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making him stir .
Fellow Republicans dozed , slumped , rubbed their eyes or stretched their legs .
When Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached , his successor Gerald Ford declared “ our long national nightmare is over ” .
This time , the party refuses to wake up .

He fought. Oh, how he fought. But Mitch McConnell’s battle with drowsy eyelids was a lost cause. The 77-year-old senator’s head bobbed and drooped. An alarmed aide sat at his side, powerless, as McConnell surrendered to the arms of Morpheus.
It was 1.40pm on Wednesday and the House impeachment manager Adam Schiff was in full flow, prosecuting the case against Donald Trump. Over nearly two and a half hours, McConnell would not be the only Republican senator to nod off, yawn, rub their eyes or bolt the chamber.
According to Schiff, the house was on fire, the republic was in jeopardy and democracy itself was threatened by “a president who would be king”. Yet the response on one side of the aisle was insouciance and somnolence. Was it mere fatigue, after Tuesday’s marathon that had run until nearly 2am? Or was it sheer boredom on the part of jurors who have already cleared the accused in their minds and are now just going through the motions?
The session had begun with pointed comments by the Senate chaplain, Barry Black, in a prayer for the senators. “Help them remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle, that words have consequences and that how something is said can be as important as what is said,” said Black, sporting a bow tie. “Give them a civility built upon integrity that brings consistency in their beliefs and actions.”
Then Schiff, chairman of the House of Representatives’ intelligence committee, stepped up to the podium to lead opening arguments. Reading from typed A4 sheets in a ring binder, he delivered a tour de force that was both epic and intimate, historically sweeping yet highly specific, offering a view from both 30,000 feet and the microscope.
Schiff began by quoting from the founding father Alexander Hamilton in a 1792 letter to George Washington that refers to “a man unprincipled in private life” and “bold in his temper” who is “known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty” and is “seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity” with an intention to “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind”.
History rhymes. The California congressman acknowledged the founders’ flaws but also their genius and prescience, though as the years passed, he noted, it became harder to imagine them as human beings. “This is no less true of Alexander Hamilton, notwithstanding his own return to celebrity.”
It was a nod to Hamilton, the unlikely Broadway musical hit about the former treasury secretary. (The world now awaits Lin-Manuel Miranda’s sequel, a rap musical about Rudy Giuliani’s adventures in Ukraine.)
Schiff set out a case painfully familiar to those who have been following the matter (which is by no means everyone). Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into two discredited allegations that would benefit Trump’s 2020 presidential election campaign, he said.
“When the Ukrainian president did not immediately agree, Trump withheld two official acts to induce the Ukrainian leader to comply – a head of state meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to a strategic partner at war with Russia. It was a corrupt scheme to secure foreign help with his re-election – in other words, to cheat.”
Representative Adam Schiff presents an argument in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump on Wednesday. Photograph: Dana Verkouteren/AP
Carefully and cleverly, Schiff portrayed a web that has Vladimir Putin has at its centre. In his version, the infamous Ukraine phone call was not separate and distinct from the Trump-Russia investigation but all of a piece.
“The military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond,” he said. “America has an abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism.”
The Senate was shown, on video screens, clips including Trump the candidate urging Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails and the former White House expert Fiona Hill warning against the repetition of Russia propaganda talking points about a Ukrainian computer server – her accent from the English town of Bishop Auckland resounding in the chamber.
Another clip was of Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, declaring: “I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”
Schiff commented: “Should we just ‘get over it’? Is that what we’ve come to? I hope and pray the answer is no.” Unless Trump was held accountable and removed from office, he warned, the next president mighty simply say: “Just get over it. I’m just doing what Donald Trump did. Just get over it.”
Above all, Schiff made a masterly plea for the soul of the nation. He entreated senators to put the constitution before party and warned that every generation had to fight anew for democracy and freedom. “If we don’t stand up to this peril today, we will write the history of our decline with our own hand.”
Watching from afar, David Axelrod, former strategist for Barack Obama, tweeted: “Devastating, epic presentation by @RepAdamSchiff to open trial. Will it matter?”
He might as well have asked if facts matter. Think of Schiff as Clarence Darrow, a legal maestro who, at the “Scopes monkey trial” in 1925, challenged a Tennessee state law that banned the teaching of evolution. He was opposed by a defender of biblical creationism. He lost.
Nearly a century later, the Republican defence appears to be based on blind faith in Trump and the verdict on his conduct is preordained. As Schiff went on, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, nodded off a few times. The aide at his side wondered what to do while remaining tactful, eventually summoning a younger staffer to place a glass of water on McConnell’s desk, thereby making him stir.
Fellow Republicans dozed, slumped, rubbed their eyes or stretched their legs.
When Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, his successor Gerald Ford declared “our long national nightmare is over”. This time, the party refuses to wake up.


theguardian--2020-01-24--Trump's threat to muzzle Bolton could undermine constitution, experts say

Donald Trump ’ s threat to assert executive privilege in his impeachment defense to try to curb testimony by his former national security adviser John Bolton is an attempt to silence a key witness and could undermine constitutional principles , ex-justice department officials and legal scholars warn .
Bolton , a controversial figure whom a former colleague has testified had grave doubts about Trump ’ s pressure tactics to get Ukraine to investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden , has indicated he would testify before the impeachment trial if he were subpoenaed .
Trump ’ s move comes after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment inquiry , which helped thwart testimony by other current and former top aides , such as the ex-White House counsel Don McGahn , sparking court challenges and a federal judge ’ s ruling that “ presidents are not kings ” .
Trump ’ s hardball legal tactics in the House prompted the second impeachment article of obstruction of Congress .
The lead impeachment manager , the congressman Adam Schiff , said last Thursday : “ In the history of the republic , no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration officials had not complied with House subpoenas .
The key impeachment article charges Trump with abusing his office to benefit his 2020 campaign by secretly withholding almost $ 400m in military aid to Ukraine and a Washington DC meeting with its president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , unless Kyiv publicly announced an inquiry into the former vice-president Joe Biden , and his son Hunter ’ s past ties to a Ukrainian energy firm .
In their legal rebuttal to the impeachment charges , Trump ’ s lawyers said he “ unequivocally denies each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment ” .
But the prospect of Bolton ’ s testimony seems to unnerve Trump .
In a Fox News interview , Trump said invoking executive privilege if Bolton testified would be “ for the sake of future presidents ” , a move that could curb , but not block entirely , potentially harmful testimony by Bolton .
In Davos on Wednesday , Trump told reporters that Bolton testimony would raise some “ national security ” problems , noting too that Bolton had departed “ probably ” not “ on the best of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people testifying when they didn ’ t leave on good terms.
” Whether Bolton testifies won ’ t be clear unless a majority of the Senate votes to allow witnesses , which most of Trump ’ s Republican allies are expected to oppose .
Four GOP members would have to join Democrats for new witnesses to testify .
Ex-justice department officials say Trump has escalated his use of dubious legal tactics , including claims of absolute immunity and executive privilege , in impeachment battles .
“ What Trump is doing is a wholesale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have relevant testimony , ” said Joshua Geltzer , who was a senior justice lawyer in the area of national security during the Obama administration and is a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center .
“ The idea that a president would invoke executive privilege to block his own impeachment is pretty close to frivolous , ” said Paul Rosenzweig , an ex-prosecutor who was a senior counsel on Ken Starr ’ s team during the Clinton impeachment .
“ It shows the extent to which Trump is willing to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really existed before.
” Rosenzweig , now a senior fellow on national and cybersecurity at the non-partisan R Street Institute , added : “ If the Senate lets him get away with it , [ that ] would be the ultimate example of undermining separation of powers , and a new example of Republican cravenness.
” Pressure for more witnesses has been increasing .
The House intelligence committee recently released a trove of incriminating documents and text messages from Lev Parnas , an indicted ally of Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bidens and pressure Zelenskiy to investigate their Ukraine roles .
Parnas , a Ukrainian American , recently told Rachel Maddow that Trump had been “ aware ” of everything and “ knew exactly what was going on ” .
But even if Trump asserts executive privilege , that wouldn ’ t stop Bolton or others from answering certain questions that might hurt Trump , says the ex-federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin .
For instance , if Bolton was asked why he said Giuliani was a “ hand grenade who ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony by a colleague indicated , “ assertion of executive privilege should not prevent him from answering ” , Zeldin said .
A few moderate GOP senators , led by Susan Collins , seem to be moving to support witnesses .
Collins said last Thursday that she would “ likely ” support calling witnesses , and she has reportedly been talking to four like-minded senators , enhancing the chances of some new witness testimony .
“ The White House would be wasting its time to meet with and lobby those four senators against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the veteran Republican operative Charlie Black .
The Washington Post reported on Monday that the Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , had been talking to Trump ’ s lawyers about a controversial fallback plan , if Bolton testifies : questioning could take place in secret to limit public attention .
Such a move in an impeachment trial could backfire legally , said Rosenzweig .
“ To classify Bolton ’ s testimony solely to conceal Trump ’ s violations of law , is itself a violation of law , ” he said @

Donald Trump’s threat to assert executive privilege in his impeachment defense to try to curb testimony by his former national security adviser John Bolton is an attempt to silence a key witness and could undermine constitutional principles, ex-justice department officials and legal scholars warn.
Bolton, a controversial figure whom a former colleague has testified had grave doubts about Trump’s pressure tactics to get Ukraine to investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden, has indicated he would testify before the impeachment trial if he were subpoenaed.
Trump’s move comes after his absolute immunity claims during the House impeachment inquiry, which helped thwart testimony by other current and former top aides, such as the ex-White House counsel Don McGahn, sparking court challenges and a federal judge’s ruling that “presidents are not kings”.
Trump’s hardball legal tactics in the House prompted the second impeachment article of obstruction of Congress. The lead impeachment manager, the congressman Adam Schiff, said last Thursday: “In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry,” stressing that nine administration officials had not complied with House subpoenas.
The key impeachment article charges Trump with abusing his office to benefit his 2020 campaign by secretly withholding almost $400m in military aid to Ukraine and a Washington DC meeting with its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, unless Kyiv publicly announced an inquiry into the former vice-president Joe Biden, and his son Hunter’s past ties to a Ukrainian energy firm.
In their legal rebuttal to the impeachment charges, Trump’s lawyers said he “unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment”.
But the prospect of Bolton’s testimony seems to unnerve Trump. In a Fox News interview, Trump said invoking executive privilege if Bolton testified would be “for the sake of future presidents”, a move that could curb, but not block entirely, potentially harmful testimony by Bolton.
In Davos on Wednesday, Trump told reporters that Bolton testimony would raise some “national security” problems, noting too that Bolton had departed “probably” not “on the best of terms … You don’t like people testifying when they didn’t leave on good terms.”
Whether Bolton testifies won’t be clear unless a majority of the Senate votes to allow witnesses, which most of Trump’s Republican allies are expected to oppose. Four GOP members would have to join Democrats for new witnesses to testify.
Ex-justice department officials say Trump has escalated his use of dubious legal tactics, including claims of absolute immunity and executive privilege, in impeachment battles.
“What Trump is doing is a wholesale attempt to silence key witnesses who might have relevant testimony,” said Joshua Geltzer, who was a senior justice lawyer in the area of national security during the Obama administration and is a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
Other ex-prosecutors share Geltzer’s concerns about Trump’s executive privilege threats.
“The idea that a president would invoke executive privilege to block his own impeachment is pretty close to frivolous,” said Paul Rosenzweig, an ex-prosecutor who was a senior counsel on Ken Starr’s team during the Clinton impeachment. “It shows the extent to which Trump is willing to go to assert executive privilege that hasn’t really existed before.”
Rosenzweig, now a senior fellow on national and cybersecurity at the non-partisan R Street Institute, added: “If the Senate lets him get away with it, [that] would be the ultimate example of undermining separation of powers, and a new example of Republican cravenness.”
A protester holds a sign outside the impeachment trial on Thursday. Photograph: Erik S Lesser/EPA
Pressure for more witnesses has been increasing.
The House intelligence committee recently released a trove of incriminating documents and text messages from Lev Parnas, an indicted ally of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who worked to dig up dirt on the Bidens and pressure Zelenskiy to investigate their Ukraine roles. Parnas, a Ukrainian American, recently told Rachel Maddow that Trump had been “aware” of everything and “knew exactly what was going on”.
But even if Trump asserts executive privilege, that wouldn’t stop Bolton or others from answering certain questions that might hurt Trump, says the ex-federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin.
For instance, if Bolton was asked why he said Giuliani was a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up”, as House testimony by a colleague indicated, “assertion of executive privilege should not prevent him from answering”, Zeldin said.
A few moderate GOP senators, led by Susan Collins, seem to be moving to support witnesses. Collins said last Thursday that she would “likely” support calling witnesses, and she has reportedly been talking to four like-minded senators, enhancing the chances of some new witness testimony.
“The White House would be wasting its time to meet with and lobby those four senators against calling witnesses or issuing subpoenas,” said the veteran Republican operative Charlie Black.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, had been talking to Trump’s lawyers about a controversial fallback plan, if Bolton testifies: questioning could take place in secret to limit public attention.
Such a move in an impeachment trial could backfire legally, said Rosenzweig. “To classify Bolton’s testimony solely to conceal Trump’s violations of law, is itself a violation of law,” he said.


theguardian--2020-01-24--‘Blatant manipulation’: Trump administration exploited wildfire science to promote logging

Political appointees at the interior department have sought to play up climate pollution from California wildfires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels as a way of promoting more logging in the nation ’ s forests , internal emails obtained by the Guardian reveal .
The messaging plan was crafted in support of Donald Trump ’ s pro-industry arguments for harvesting more timber in California , which he says would thin forests and prevent fires – a point experts refute .
The emails show officials seeking to estimate the carbon emissions from devastating 2018 fires in California so they could compare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s electricity sector and then publish statements encouraging cutting down trees .
The records offer a look behind the scenes at how Trump and his appointees have tried to craft a narrative that forest protection efforts are responsible for wildfires , including in California , even as science shows fires are becoming more intense largely because of climate change .
James Reilly , a former petroleum geologist and astronaut who is the director of the US Geological Survey , in a series of emails in 2018 asked scientists to “ gin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also said the numbers would make a “ decent sound bite ” , and acknowledged that wildfire emissions estimates could vary based on what kind of trees were burning but picked the ones that he said would make “ a good story ” .
Scientists who reviewed the exchanges said that at best Reilly used unfortunate language and the department cherry-picked data to help achieve their pro-industry policy goals ; at worst he and others exploited a disaster and manipulated the data .
The emails add to concerns that the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than pursuing the public interest .
Across agencies , top positions are filled by former lobbyists , and dozens of investigative reports have revealed agencies working closely with major industries to ease pollution , public health and safety regulations .
A USGS spokesperson said Reilly ’ s emails were “ intended to instruct the subject matter expert to do the calculations as quickly as possible based on the best available data at the time and provide results in clear understandable language that the Secretary could use to effectively communicate to a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ stands by the integrity of its science ” When forests burn , they do emit greenhouse gases .
But one expert said the numbers the interior department put forth are significant overestimates .
They say logging wouldn ’ t necessarily help prevent or lessen wildfires .
On the contrary , logging could negate the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide humans are emitting at record rates .
Chad Hanson , a California-based forest ecologist who co-founded the John Muir Project and a lawyer who has opposed logging after fires , called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blatant political manipulation of science ” .
Mark Harmon , a professor emeritus at Oregon State University ’ s College of Forestry , said while it ’ s normal for the department to want to quantify emissions from fires , it ’ s unclear whether they began the process with a particular figure in mind .
“ Gin-up is an unfortunate phrase to be sure , but it might have been a very imprecise way to ask for an estimate .
It certainly does not inspire confidence , ” Harmon said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials and press releases from the department are “ about what you would expect from agencies trying to justify actions they already decided to take with minimal analysis ” .
Harmon added that “ the effect of logging on fires is highly variable , ” depending on how it is done and the weather conditions .
Not long after the interior department came up with its carbon emission estimates from the 2018 California wildfires , Trump issued an executive order instructing federal land managers to significantly increase the amount of timber they harvest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing logging in Alaska ’ s Tongass national forest , the largest intact temperate rainforest in North America .
Trump has also tweeted multiple times about wildfires , saying they are caused by bad land management or environmental laws that make water unavailable .
Monica Turner , a fire ecology scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison , said “ it is climate that is responsible for the size and severity of these fires ” .
An Interior department spokesperson said the department ’ s role is to follow the laws and use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work to best understand and address the impacts of an ever-changing climate.
” Agency officials started emphasizing wildfire emissions data as a talking point as early as August 2018 .
In an email chain that month , Reilly was asked by interior ’ s former deputy chief of staff Downey Magallanes to sign off on a statement that fires in 2018 had emitted 95.6m tons of CO2 .
“ Interesting statistics , ” Reilly responded , noting that emissions would vary based on the types of trees on the land .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t currently have details on the overall land cover types involved .
Any variance to the fuel type will still leave it in the range to make the comparison , however .
I ’ ll use this one if you don ’ t object .
Makes a good story.
” Reilly , who was confirmed to his position in April 2018 , later asked career scientists at the agency for updated numbers , according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act .
“ I need to get a number for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires and a comparison against emissions for all energy in US … Tasker from the boss ; back to me ASAP , ” he said on 10 October 2018 .
His boss at the time was the former interior secretary Ryan Zinke .
The job fell to Doug Beard , the director of the National Climate Adaptation Science Center , and Bradley Reed , an associate program coordinator in the Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program , who responded with numbers from his team that afternoon .
In November 2018 , Reilly once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dioxide generated by two devastating fires that fall in California – the Camp and Woolsey fires .
“ The Secretary likes to have this kind of information when he speaks with the media , ” Reilly said in a 16 November email to David Applegate , the associate director for natural hazards .
Applegate directed Beard to get the numbers , and Reilly chimed in , asking Beard : “ Can you have [ the scientists ] gin up an estimate on the total CO2 equivalent releases are so far for the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he wanted to compare the figures to the carbon pollution caused by transportation in California .
“ That would make a decent sound bite the Sec could use to put some perspective on it , ” said Reilly .
Just a week earlier , the ferocious Camp fire had destroyed Paradise , California , killing dozens and becoming the deadliest wildfire in the state ’ s history .
The scenes detailed were horrific .
Conservatives have insisted that the wildfires are happening because environmentalists have overzealously encouraged the conservation of forests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of the American progressive movement he opposes – over a multitude of other issues , including the state ’ s longstanding climate policy of requiring new cars to go farther on less fuel .
The new emails show communications staffers and political appointees using government scientists as foot soldiers in those battles .
Now , under the leadership of the former lobbyist David Bernhardt , the agency has sought to remove consideration of climate change from many of its decisions , while expanding oil and gas drilling on federal land .
Multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate science .
Bernhardt in a May 2019 hearing told lawmakers there are no laws obligating him to combat climate change .
After Reilly asked his staff to calculate the wildfire emissions numbers in November , an interior spokeswoman emailed him asking for the same information so she could put out a statement from Zinke .
A few days later , the agency published a press release on Zinke ’ s behalf , with the title “ New Analysis Shows 2018 California Wildfires Emitted as Much Carbon Dioxide as an Entire Year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s too much dead and dying timber in the forest , which fuels these catastrophic fires , ” Zinke said .
“ Proper management of our forests , to include small prescribed burns , mechanical thinning , and other techniques , will improve forest health and reduce the risk of wildfires , while also helping curb the carbon emissions.
” Hanson , the forest and fire ecologist , said that in addition to using the government data for political purposes , the department numbers overstated the carbon emissions from forest fires while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the carbon emissions numbers generated by USGS and released to the public were an “ overestimate ” that “ can ’ t be squared with empirical data ” from field studies of post-wildfire burn sites in California .
Other scientists the Guardian spoke with did not dispute the government ’ s data , but did find fault with the way it was presented to the public .
“ The comparison of fire to electrical emissions [ in California ] was not explained or justified ” , said Harmon , the Oregon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors would have left an entirely different image in the reader ’ s mind…If the comparison had been made nationally it would have been found that fire related emissions of carbon dioxide were equivalent to 1.7 % of fossil fuel related emissions .
So it is hard to escape the conclusion that some cherry picking was going on.
” Jayson O ’ Neill , the deputy director of the Western Values Project , said the emails are another example of the administration “ trying to find ways to tell a story to achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have repeatedly explained , you can ’ t log or even ‘ rake ’ our way out of this mess , ” O ’ Neill said .
“ The Trump administration and the interior department are pushing mystical theories that are false in order to justify gutting public land protections to advance their pro-industry and lobbyist dominated agenda .
”

Political appointees at the interior department have sought to play up climate pollution from California wildfires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels as a way of promoting more logging in the nation’s forests, internal emails obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The messaging plan was crafted in support of Donald Trump’s pro-industry arguments for harvesting more timber in California, which he says would thin forests and prevent fires – a point experts refute.
The emails show officials seeking to estimate the carbon emissions from devastating 2018 fires in California so they could compare them to the carbon footprint of the state’s electricity sector and then publish statements encouraging cutting down trees.
The records offer a look behind the scenes at how Trump and his appointees have tried to craft a narrative that forest protection efforts are responsible for wildfires, including in California, even as science shows fires are becoming more intense largely because of climate change.
James Reilly, a former petroleum geologist and astronaut who is the director of the US Geological Survey, in a series of emails in 2018 asked scientists to “gin up” emissions figures for him. He also said the numbers would make a “decent sound bite”, and acknowledged that wildfire emissions estimates could vary based on what kind of trees were burning but picked the ones that he said would make “a good story”.
Scientists who reviewed the exchanges said that at best Reilly used unfortunate language and the department cherry-picked data to help achieve their pro-industry policy goals; at worst he and others exploited a disaster and manipulated the data.
A trail through the Tongass national forest, where Trump proposed allowing logging. Photograph: Rafe Hanson
The emails add to concerns that the Trump administration is doing industry’s bidding rather than pursuing the public interest. Across agencies, top positions are filled by former lobbyists, and dozens of investigative reports have revealed agencies working closely with major industries to ease pollution, public health and safety regulations.
A USGS spokesperson said Reilly’s emails were “intended to instruct the subject matter expert to do the calculations as quickly as possible based on the best available data at the time and provide results in clear understandable language that the Secretary could use to effectively communicate to a variety of audiences.” The agency added that it “stands by the integrity of its science”
When forests burn, they do emit greenhouse gases. But one expert said the numbers the interior department put forth are significant overestimates. They say logging wouldn’t necessarily help prevent or lessen wildfires. On the contrary, logging could negate the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide humans are emitting at record rates.
It is climate that is responsible for the size and severity of these fires Monica Turner
Chad Hanson, a California-based forest ecologist who co-founded the John Muir Project and who has opposed logging after fires, called the strategizing revealed in the emails a “blatant political manipulation of science”.
Mark Harmon, a professor emeritus at Oregon State University’s College of Forestry, said while it’s normal for the department to want to quantify emissions from fires, it’s unclear whether they began the process with a particular figure in mind.
“Gin-up is an unfortunate phrase to be sure, but it might have been a very imprecise way to ask for an estimate. It certainly does not inspire confidence,” Harmon said.
He said the resulting quotes from top officials and press releases from the department are “about what you would expect from agencies trying to justify actions they already decided to take with minimal analysis”.
Harmon added that “the effect of logging on fires is highly variable,” depending on how it is done and the weather conditions.
Not long after the interior department came up with its carbon emission estimates from the 2018 California wildfires, Trump issued an executive order instructing federal land managers to significantly increase the amount of timber they harvest. This fall, he also proposed allowing logging in Alaska’s Tongass national forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest in North America.
Trump has also tweeted multiple times about wildfires, saying they are caused by bad land management or environmental laws that make water unavailable.
Monica Turner, a fire ecology scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said “it is climate that is responsible for the size and severity of these fires”.
An Interior department spokesperson said the department’s role is to follow the laws and use the best science and that it continues “to work to best understand and address the impacts of an ever-changing climate.”
Agency officials started emphasizing wildfire emissions data as a talking point as early as August 2018.
In an email chain that month, Reilly was asked by interior’s former deputy chief of staff Downey Magallanes to sign off on a statement that fires in 2018 had emitted 95.6m tons of CO2.
“Interesting statistics,” Reilly responded, noting that emissions would vary based on the types of trees on the land. “…We assumed woodlands mix since we don’t currently have details on the overall land cover types involved. Any variance to the fuel type will still leave it in the range to make the comparison, however. I’ll use this one if you don’t object. Makes a good story.”
Homes leveled by the Camp fire at the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park retirement community in Paradise, California. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP
Reilly, who was confirmed to his position in April 2018, later asked career scientists at the agency for updated numbers, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
“I need to get a number for total CO2 releases for the recent CA fires and a comparison against emissions for all energy in US … Tasker from the boss; back to me ASAP,” he said on 10 October 2018. His boss at the time was the former interior secretary Ryan Zinke.
The job fell to Doug Beard, the director of the National Climate Adaptation Science Center, and Bradley Reed, an associate program coordinator in the Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program, who responded with numbers from his team that afternoon.
In November 2018, Reilly once again asked for the same estimates of carbon dioxide generated by two devastating fires that fall in California – the Camp and Woolsey fires.
“The Secretary likes to have this kind of information when he speaks with the media,” Reilly said in a 16 November email to David Applegate, the associate director for natural hazards.
Applegate directed Beard to get the numbers, and Reilly chimed in, asking Beard: “Can you have [the scientists] gin up an estimate on the total CO2 equivalent releases are so far for the current 2 fires in CA?” He said he wanted to compare the figures to the carbon pollution caused by transportation in California.
“That would make a decent sound bite the Sec could use to put some perspective on it,” said Reilly.
Just a week earlier, the ferocious Camp fire had destroyed Paradise, California, killing dozens and becoming the deadliest wildfire in the state’s history. The scenes detailed were horrific.
Conservatives have insisted that the wildfires are happening because environmentalists have overzealously encouraged the conservation of forests. Trump has battled with California – the face of the American progressive movement he opposes – over a multitude of other issues, including the state’s longstanding climate policy of requiring new cars to go farther on less fuel.
The new emails show communications staffers and political appointees using government scientists as foot soldiers in those battles.
‘There’s too much dead and dying timber in the forest, which fuels these catastrophic fires,’ Zinke said. Photograph: Rich Pedroncelli/AP
Now, under the leadership of the former lobbyist David Bernhardt, the agency has sought to remove consideration of climate change from many of its decisions, while expanding oil and gas drilling on federal land. Multiple whistleblowers have accused the department of stifling climate science.
Bernhardt in a May 2019 hearing told lawmakers there are no laws obligating him to combat climate change.
After Reilly asked his staff to calculate the wildfire emissions numbers in November, an interior spokeswoman emailed him asking for the same information so she could put out a statement from Zinke. A few days later, the agency published a press release on Zinke’s behalf, with the title “New Analysis Shows 2018 California Wildfires Emitted as Much Carbon Dioxide as an Entire Year’s Worth of Electricity.”
“There’s too much dead and dying timber in the forest, which fuels these catastrophic fires,” Zinke said. “Proper management of our forests, to include small prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, and other techniques, will improve forest health and reduce the risk of wildfires, while also helping curb the carbon emissions.”
As wildfire experts have repeatedly explained, you can’t log or even ‘rake’ our way out of this mess Jayson O’Neill
Hanson, the forest and fire ecologist, said that in addition to using the government data for political purposes, the department numbers overstated the carbon emissions from forest fires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels.
He said that the carbon emissions numbers generated by USGS and released to the public were an “overestimate” that “can’t be squared with empirical data” from field studies of post-wildfire burn sites in California. Other scientists the Guardian spoke with did not dispute the government’s data, but did find fault with the way it was presented to the public.
“The comparison of fire to electrical emissions [in California] was not explained or justified”, said Harmon, the Oregon State University scientist. “Picking other sectors would have left an entirely different image in the reader’s mind…If the comparison had been made nationally it would have been found that fire related emissions of carbon dioxide were equivalent to 1.7% of fossil fuel related emissions. So it is hard to escape the conclusion that some cherry picking was going on.”
Jayson O’Neill, the deputy director of the Western Values Project, said the emails are another example of the administration “trying to find ways to tell a story to achieve industry goals”.
“As wildfire experts have repeatedly explained, you can’t log or even ‘rake’ our way out of this mess,” O’Neill said. “The Trump administration and the interior department are pushing mystical theories that are false in order to justify gutting public land protections to advance their pro-industry and lobbyist dominated agenda.”


theguardian--2020-01-24--Impeachment: Democrats say conduct is 'not America first, but Trump first'

In a stirring oration to conclude the third full day of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , the lead prosecutor Adam Schiff told senators that in the United States , “ right matters ” and “ you know that what he did was not right ” .
After about nine hours of argumentation in which Democrats methodically presented evidence that Trump had committed an abuse of power by pressuring Ukraine for his personal political benefit , Schiff urged the Senate to remove Trump from office .
“ You know you can ’ t trust this president to do what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Schiff .
“ You can only trust this president to do what ’ s right for Donald Trump.
” Democratic impeachment managers , who are acting as the prosecutors bringing the case for Trump ’ s removal from office , were spending a third day in Washington laying out their case against Trump in only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history .
Jerry Nadler , the chair of the House of Representatives ’ judiciary committee , argued that Trump should be convicted of two articles of impeachment passed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power and obstruction of Congress – for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden last year , and obstructing an investigation into the affair .
Quoting national security aide Alexander Vindman , who testified in November in public hearings before the intelligence committee and whose family were Soviet refugees , Schiff said that “ if right doesn ’ t matter , we ’ re lost ” .
“ You know that what he did was not right .
That ’ s what they do in the old country , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that my great-grandfather came from , that some of you may come from .
But here right is supposed to matter.
” Democrats have been hammering against extreme Republican skepticism of the case against Trump .
A rotation of managers on the Senate floor , led by Schiff of California , have presented the 100 senators with video testimony from public hearings last month interwoven with recently unearthed evidence and analysis detailing Trump ’ s scheme .
Republicans , for their part , have voted against taking witness testimony while complaining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light , and multiple Republicans called on Thursday for the testimony of Hunter Biden , the former vice-president ’ s son once employed by a Ukrainian gas company .
Expressing frustration with the length and what they said was the repetitiousness of the Democrats ’ case , Republican senators told reporters during a break that it was time to hear the other side .
“ We are ready for the president ’ s team to put their defense on .
We have heard plenty from the House now , ” said Republican Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am ready to hear from the president ’ s defense.
” Trump ’ s defense could get under way as soon as Saturday .
Jay Sekulow , a lead lawyer on the defense team , did not offer a specific reply to reporters ’ questions about the arguments they would make .
“ We will refute their case , and we will present our case , ” Sekulow said .
On Thursday , the impeachment managers sought to expose the hypocrisy , as they framed it , in Trump ’ s defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against them .
Nadler played archival clips of Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz , a member of Trump ’ s legal team , arguing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton that an impeachable “ abuse of power ” need not be based on an underlying criminal offense .
That is the mainstream view of constitutional scholars , but not Trump ’ s current defense argument .
To argue that Trump ’ s obsession with supposed Ukrainian hacking in the 2016 election was “ far-fetched and crazy ” , in the words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers played video of Trump ’ s FBI director , Christopher Wray ; Trump ’ s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert ; and Trump ’ s former top Russia expert Fiona Hill , debunking the conspiracy theory .
“ He must not remain in power one moment longer , ” Nadler said of Trump .
Taking a swipe at one of Trump ’ s campaign slogans , Nadler added : “ This conduct is not ‘ America first ’ .
It is Donald Trump first .
Donald Trump swore an oath to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting the nation ’ s interests above his own .
And the president has repeatedly , flagrantly violated his oath.
” Democratic House impeachment managers have a total of 24 hours over three days , which makes it likely that their case will continue into Friday .
But so far , all the signs are that Republicans are unmoved .
Even as Schiff presented a meticulous and lengthy narrative on Wednesday , praised by the Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , as a “ tour de force ” , the Republicans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public statements outside it expressed weariness and disbelief .
“ I think it ’ s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden and we probably need to call Joe Biden , ” Josh Hawley , a Republican senator from Missouri , said during a break on Thursday .
“ Based on the House managers ’ presentation today , I think we probably are going to need to hear from the former vice-president if indeed we call witnesses.
” Sekulow argued that nothing Democrats had said had changed the disposition of the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s team would take all of its allotted 24 hours to respond .
“ We ’ re going to use a sufficient amount of time , to not only defend our case but to point out the inconsistencies in their case , ” Sekulow said .
“ We ’ re not going to try to run the clock out.
” Trump is not expected to appear at his own congressional trial .
The smooth rollout of the Democratic case had just one hiccup , shortly before the dinner break , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony by national security aide Alexander Vindman – but the video did not play .
“ Let ’ s hear Colonel Vindman , ” Schiff said .
“ No ?
We don ’ t have that ?
Let ’ s not hear Colonel Vindman .
We ’ ve heard enough from Colonel Vindman.
” Trump has directed current and former administration officials , including the secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , and the former national security adviser John Bolton , not to testify or provide documents .
But a Reuters/Ipsos poll this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – including 84 % of Democrats and 69 % of Republicans – want to see new witnesses testify in the trial .
Schiff and other Democrats have told how Trump and his aides pressed the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , to investigate Biden , a leading 2020 Democratic presidential contender , and Biden ’ s son on baseless corruption charges as well as a discredited theory that Ukraine , not Russia , meddled in the 2016 presidential election .
Nearly $ 400m in US military aid to Ukraine was temporarily frozen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the 100-member Senate , where there are 53 Republicans and where a two-thirds majority of those present is needed to convict and remove him from office .
But the political impact of the trial remains uncertain .


theguardian--2020-01-24--Impeachment trial: Democrats cry hypocrisy as Republicans say 'we've seen this before' – as it happe

Impeachment trial: Democrats cry hypocrisy as Republicans say 'we've seen this before' – as it happened

While Senate Republicans are eating Carmine ’ s Italian food , Democrats are eating barbecue for dinner .
As Republicans complain that the House managers were repeating themselves too much , Democrats are hitting back by accusing Republicans of hypocrisy .
“ You know what ?
[ Republicans ] spent all of Tuesday fighting back all of our efforts to present new evidence and new documents , ” said Mazie Hirono , a Democratic senator from Hawaii .
“ As though the things that have already been presented isn ’ t damning enough of the president.
” Hirono added that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear that this president that they ’ re so busy supporting did these things ” .
“ And as I put it , the truth hurts , ” she said .
Speaking with CNN , Elizabeth Warren echoed : “ I think the Republicans have worked themselves into this corner of nothing new but we ’ re not going to call any witnesses or get new evidence .
Like I say , you can ’ t have it both ways.
” “ If you want to hear what happened , call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
Some of the repetition is “ vitally important ” said Senator Bob Casey , a Democrat from Pennsylvania .
“ I have a different view on that than some.
” Reiterating and carefully laying out the case against Donald Trump is the best strategy Democrats have to convince their Republican colleagues of their “ very compelling case , ” he added .
“ The more we kind of recite the details of the better .
”

Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now), Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier) and Adam Gabbatt in New York (earlier)

24 Jan 2020 04.30 GMT Summary Over the course of today, House Democrats detailed evidence supporting their first article of impeachment against Donald Trump. Catch up on The Guardian’s coverage: Read today’s key takeaways
Review what the Democrats said, and what the Republicans were up to behind the scenes. We are all — to paraphrase Senator Lisa Murkowski — ‘pooped puppies’. We’ll be back tomorrow with more live coverage of the impeachment trial.
24 Jan 2020 04.11 GMT Congress makes new appeal for court to quickly decide on Don McGahn subpoena In an ongoing case over whether or former White House attorney Don McGahn should be compelled to testify before House investigators, the House of Representatives’ top lawyer has made a new appeal to enforce their subpoena. NEW: The House has filed a letter with the Appeals Court arguing that Trump's impeachment lawyers have completely contradicted their arguments in the McGahn case. pic.twitter.com/uiS4l9mDnu — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 24, 2020 During the trial, Trump’s lawyers faulted House investigators for not trying harder to enforce subpoenas for key witness testimonies and documents during the impeachment inquiry and argued it was too late to bring in new witnesses and evidence.
That position contradicts the administration’s earlier argument that the courts should stay away from subpoena disputes between Congress and the White House, the House’s general counsel argued in a letter submitted tonight.
Updated at 04.16 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.53 GMT Worn out senators are heading home for the night. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator of Alaska, reportedly has plans to unwind and recuperate. “I am one pooped puppy,” @lisamurkowski says, declining to address the trial’s substance. She may take a bath and have a glass of wine. — Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) January 24, 2020 “I’m going to go home, maybe have a glass of wine, maybe even take a bath!” she told reporters.
Updated at 03.56 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.34 GMT In an emotional closing statement, Schiff concluded: “If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost.” The last part of Schiff's comments tonight are turning out to be quite an emotional plea to the Senate pic.twitter.com/FJlVvcXz67 — Salvador Hernandez (@SalHernandez) January 24, 2020 Directly appealing to Republican senators who may believe that Donald Trump behaved inappropriately, but aren’t willing to remove him from office, Schiff said: “If you find him guilty, you must find that he must be removed.”
Updated at 03.43 GMT
24 Jan 2020 03.14 GMT Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, is now presenting a closing summary. Responding to Donald Trump’s calls to “read the transcript” of the 25 July call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Schiff is reviewing the memo of the phone call, and point out the bits that look suspicious. First on that list: The fact that Trump asked Zelenskiy to “call Rudy” the president’s personal lawyer. Trump also encouraged the Ukrainian president to speak with the attorney general, William Barr. “I think there’s no one who comes up more in this call record than Rudy Guiliani, which tells us something,” Schiff said. Later, he added: “Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies... that makes him dangerous to us, to our country.” Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president: read the full memorandum Read more
Updated at 03.56 GMT
24 Jan 2020 02.51 GMT A few more scenes from the trial chamber: Senators and 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar reportedly shared a laugh. On the floor, Bernie Sanders looked quite tired, ultimately got up, walked to the back of the chamber - and chatted briefly with Amy Klobuchar. She pointed to something in her binder. They both shared a laugh and Sanders retreated to the cloak room. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 24, 2020 Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican of North Carolina, sought a new vantage point. Sen. Tillis is not in his seat at the moment. He’s sitting watching from above in the visitor gallery, for some reason — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 24, 2020
24 Jan 2020 02.30 GMT Emphasizing that nearly $400m in congressionally-appropriated military aid to Ukraine was held up for no good reason, the impeachment manager Zoe Lofgren, with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sitting nearby, pointed out: “Even Senator McConnell has said ‘I was not given an explanation’ for the hold.” The evidence is clear that Donald Trump “knowingly, willfully violated the law when he withheld the aid to Ukraine”, Lofgren said. “It shows the great lengths the president was willing to go to in order to pressure Ukraine to do his dirty work.”
Updated at 02.46 GMT


theguardian--2020-01-24--The key takeaways from day three of the impeachment trial

The third full day of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the US Senate has concluded .
Here are six key takeaways : In a stirring oration to conclude the day , the lead prosecutor Adam Schiff told senators that in the United States , “ right matters ” and “ you know that what he did was not right ” .
“ You know you can ’ t trust this president to do what ’ s right for this country , ” said Schiff .
“ You can only trust this president to do what ’ s right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security aide Alexander Vindman , who testified in November in public hearings before the intelligence committee and whose family were Soviet refugees , Schiff urged that Trump be removed from office .
“ If right doesn ’ t matter , we ’ re lost , ” Schiff said .
“ You know that what he did was not right .
That ’ s what they do in the old country , that Colonel Vindman ’ s father came from , that my great-grandfather came from , that some of you may come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter.
” Democrats presented a slide laying out a roadmap of the case they planned to make on Thursday – and for the next eight-plus hours they rumbled through .
“ When we ’ re done , we believe that we will have made the case overwhelmingly of the president ’ s guilt , ” Schiff said .
The Democrats began with a discussion of why “ abuse of power ” was a central concern of the constitutional framers , and then they methodically laid out evidence of how Trump had committed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extract personal political favors from Ukraine .
Once again , there were dozens of video clips , reams of emails and text messages , and hours of narration tying it all together .
But also once again , there were indications that the presentation did not completely land on the Republican side .
“ It seems like Groundhog ’ s Day , ” the Republican senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters during a break .
“ It is the same thing , day after day after day .
As if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear from the defense Expressing frustration with the length and what they said was the repetitiousness of the Democrats ’ case , Republican senators told reporters during a break that it was time to hear the other side .
“ My frustration is , the American people are getting half the story at this point , ” said the Republican senator James Lankford of Oklahoma .
“ I am looking forward in the days ahead for the first time to finally hearing both sides of the story , all the way through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the other side of the story , and I look forward to getting a chance to hear it.
” Democrats use Republicans ’ own words against them The House manager Jerry Nadler played archival clips of Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz , a member of Trump ’ s legal team , arguing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton that an impeachable “ abuse of power ” need not be based on an underlying criminal offense .
That is the mainstream view of constitutional scholars , but not Trump ’ s current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s obsession with supposed Ukrainian hacking in the 2016 election was “ far-fetched and crazy ” , in the words of the manager Silvia Garcia of Texas , the managers played video of Trump ’ s FBI director , Christopher Wray ; Trump ’ s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert ; and Trump ’ s former top Russia expert Fiona Hill , debunking the conspiracy theory .
An oft-repeated Republican talking point on Thursday was that the trial had made clear that Hunter Biden must be called .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must call Hunter Biden and we probably need to call Joe Biden , ” said Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri .
“ Based on the House managers ’ presentation today , I think we probably are going to need to hear from the former vice-president if indeed we call witnesses.
” “ Will the storyline by House managers about the Bidens and Burisma withstand scrutiny ?
” he tweeted during a break in the proceedings .

The third full day of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the US Senate has concluded. Here are six key takeaways:
Schiff: ‘right matters’
In a stirring oration to conclude the day, the lead prosecutor Adam Schiff told senators that in the United States, “right matters” and “you know that what he did was not right”.
“You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” said Schiff. “You can only trust this president to do what’s right for Donald Trump.”
Quoting the national security aide Alexander Vindman, who testified in November in public hearings before the intelligence committee and whose family were Soviet refugees, Schiff urged that Trump be removed from office.
“If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost,” Schiff said. “You know that what he did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country, that Colonel Vindman’s father came from, that my great-grandfather came from, that some of you may come from. But here right is supposed to matter.”
02:55 Impeachment case against Trump continues into third day - video
Democratic juggernaut rumbles on
Democrats presented a slide laying out a roadmap of the case they planned to make on Thursday – and for the next eight-plus hours they rumbled through.
“When we’re done, we believe that we will have made the case overwhelmingly of the president’s guilt,” Schiff said.
The Democrats began with a discussion of why “abuse of power” was a central concern of the constitutional framers, and then they methodically laid out evidence of how Trump had committed an abuse of power by using official acts to extract personal political favors from Ukraine.
Once again, there were dozens of video clips, reams of emails and text messages, and hours of narration tying it all together. But also once again, there were indications that the presentation did not completely land on the Republican side.
“It seems like Groundhog’s Day,” the Republican senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters during a break. “It is the same thing, day after day after day. As if you could impeach by repetition.”
Republicans demand to hear from the defense
Expressing frustration with the length and what they said was the repetitiousness of the Democrats’ case, Republican senators told reporters during a break that it was time to hear the other side.
“My frustration is, the American people are getting half the story at this point,” said the Republican senator James Lankford of Oklahoma. “I am looking forward in the days ahead for the first time to finally hearing both sides of the story, all the way through.
Finally, we’ll get to the other side of the story, and I look forward to getting a chance to hear it.”
Trump’s defense previews its case
“We will refute their case, and we will present our case.” – lead defense attorney Jay Sekulow, responding to questions about his strategy
Democrats use Republicans’ own words against them
The House manager Jerry Nadler played archival clips of Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team, arguing during the impeachment of Bill Clinton that an impeachable “abuse of power” need not be based on an underlying criminal offense. That is the mainstream view of constitutional scholars, but not Trump’s current defense argument.
To argue that Trump’s obsession with supposed Ukrainian hacking in the 2016 election was “far-fetched and crazy”, in the words of the manager Silvia Garcia of Texas, the managers played video of Trump’s FBI director, Christopher Wray; Trump’s former homeland security adviser Tom Bossert; and Trump’s former top Russia expert Fiona Hill, debunking the conspiracy theory.
Republicans demand witnesses
An oft-repeated Republican talking point on Thursday was that the trial had made clear that Hunter Biden must be called. “I think it’s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden and we probably need to call Joe Biden,” said Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri. “Based on the House managers’ presentation today, I think we probably are going to need to hear from the former vice-president if indeed we call witnesses.”
Graham echoed the sentiment.
“Will the storyline by House managers about the Bidens and Burisma withstand scrutiny?” he tweeted during a break in the proceedings.
“Stay tuned.”