theguardian--2020-01-20--Donald Trump is a good president … but only for the top 1%

As the world ’ s business elites trek to Davos for their annual gathering , people should be asking a simple question : have they overcome their infatuation with the US president ?
Two years ago , a few rare corporate leaders were concerned about climate change , or upset at Donald Trump ’ s misogyny and bigotry .
Most , however , were celebrating the president ’ s tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and looking forward to his efforts to deregulate the economy .
That would allow businesses to pollute the air more , get more Americans hooked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eat their diabetes-inducing foods and engage in the sort of financial shenanigans that brought on the 2008 crisis .
Today , many corporate bosses are still talking about the continued GDP growth and record stock prices .
But neither GDP nor the Dow is a good measure of economic performance .
Neither tells us what ’ s happening to ordinary citizens ’ living standards or anything about sustainability .
In fact , US economic performance over the past four years is Exhibit A in the indictment against relying on these indicators .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s economic health , start by looking at the health of its citizens .
If they are happy and prosperous they will be healthy and live longer .
Among developed countries , the US sits at the bottom in this regard .
US life expectancy , already relatively low , fell in each of the first two years of Trump ’ s presidency and in 2017 , midlife mortality reached its highest rate since the second world war .
This is not a surprise because no president has worked harder to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Millions have lost their coverage and the uninsured rate has risen , in only two years , from 10.9 % to 13.7 % .
One reason for declining life expectancy in the US is what Anne Case and the Nobel laureate economist Angus Deaton call deaths of despair , caused by alcohol , drug overdoses and suicide .
In 2017 ( the most recent year for which good data is available ) , such deaths stood at almost four times their 1999 level .
The only time I have seen anything like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war or epidemics – was when I was chief economist of the World Bank and found out that mortality and morbidity data confirmed what our economic indicators suggested about the dismal state of the post-Soviet Russian economy .
Trump may be a good president for the top 1 % – and especially for the top 0.1 % – but he has not been good for everyone else .
If fully implemented , the 2017 tax cut will result in tax increases for most households in the second , third and fourth income quintiles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ultra-rich and corporations , it should come as no surprise that there was no significant change in the median US household ’ s disposable income between 2017 and 2018 ( again , the most recent year with good data ) .
The lion ’ s share of the increase in GDP is also going to those at the top .
Real median weekly earnings are only 2.6 % above their level when Trump took office .
And these increases have not offset long periods of wage stagnation .
For example , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones ) is still more than 3 % below what it was 40 years ago .
Nor has there been much progress on reducing racial disparities : in the third quarter of 2019 , median weekly earnings for black men working full-time were less than three-quarters the level for white men .
Making matters worse , the growth that has occurred is not environmentally sustainable – and even less so thanks to the Trump administration ’ s gutting of regulations that have passed stringent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less breathable , the water less drinkable and the planet more subject to climate change .
In fact , losses related to climate change have already reached new highs in the US , which has suffered more property damage than any other country – reaching some 1.5 % of GDP in 2017 .
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment .
Instead , they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $ 800bn in 2018 – by some of the most profitable companies in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( almost $ 1tn in fiscal 2019 ) in a country supposedly near full employment .
And even with weak investment , the US had to borrow massively abroad : the most recent data show foreign borrowing at almost $ 500bn a year , with an increase of more than 10 % in the country ’ s net indebtedness position in one year alone .
Likewise , Trump ’ s trade wars , for all their sound and fury , have not reduced the US trade deficit , which was one-quarter higher in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record .
Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016 .
The US did get a new North American trade agreement , without the investment agreement provisions that the Business Roundtable wanted , without the provisions raising drug prices that the pharmaceutical companies wanted and with better labour and environmental provisions .
Trump , a self-proclaimed master dealmaker , lost on almost every front in his negotiations with congressional Democrats , resulting in a slightly improved trade arrangement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US , the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor , Barack Obama , once the post-2008 recovery set in , and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level .
Even the unemployment rate , at a 50-year low , masks economic fragility .
The employment rate for working-age males and females , while rising , has increased less than during the Obama recovery and is still significantly below that of other developed countries .
The pace of job creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Obama .
Again , the low employment rate is not a surprise , not least because unhealthy people can not work .
Moreover , those on disability benefits , in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970 , with some 2 million people currently behind bars – or so discouraged that they are not actively seeking jobs are not counted as “ unemployed.
” But , of course , they are not employed .
Nor is it a surprise that a country that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have lower female employment – adjusted for population , more than ten percentage points lower – than other developed countries .
Even judging by GDP , the Trump economy falls short .
Last quarter ’ s growth was only 2.1 % , far less than the 4 % , 5 % or even 6 % Trump promised , and even less than the 2.4 % average of Obama ’ s second term .
That is a remarkably poor performance considering the stimulus provided by the $ 1tn deficit and ultra-low interest rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a matter of bad luck : Trump ’ s brand is uncertainty , volatility and prevarication , whereas trust , stability , and confidence are essential for growth .
So is equality , according to the International Monetary Fund .
So , Trump deserves failing grades not only on essential tasks such as upholding democracy and preserving our planet .
He should not get a pass on the economy , either .
• Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics , university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at @ @ @ @

As the world’s business elites trek to Davos for their annual gathering, people should be asking a simple question: have they overcome their infatuation with the US president?
Two years ago, a few rare corporate leaders were concerned about climate change, or upset at Donald Trump’s misogyny and bigotry. Most, however, were celebrating the president’s tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and looking forward to his efforts to deregulate the economy. That would allow businesses to pollute the air more, get more Americans hooked on opioids, entice more children to eat their diabetes-inducing foods and engage in the sort of financial shenanigans that brought on the 2008 crisis.
Today, many corporate bosses are still talking about the continued GDP growth and record stock prices. But neither GDP nor the Dow is a good measure of economic performance. Neither tells us what’s happening to ordinary citizens’ living standards or anything about sustainability. In fact, US economic performance over the past four years is Exhibit A in the indictment against relying on these indicators.
To get a good reading on a country’s economic health, start by looking at the health of its citizens. If they are happy and prosperous they will be healthy and live longer. Among developed countries, the US sits at the bottom in this regard. US life expectancy, already relatively low, fell in each of the first two years of Trump’s presidency and in 2017, midlife mortality reached its highest rate since the second world war. This is not a surprise because no president has worked harder to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance. Millions have lost their coverage and the uninsured rate has risen, in only two years, from 10.9% to 13.7%.
One reason for declining life expectancy in the US is what Anne Case and the Nobel laureate economist Angus Deaton call deaths of despair, caused by alcohol, drug overdoses and suicide. In 2017 (the most recent year for which good data is available), such deaths stood at almost four times their 1999 level.
The only time I have seen anything like these declines in health – outside of war or epidemics – was when I was chief economist of the World Bank and found out that mortality and morbidity data confirmed what our economic indicators suggested about the dismal state of the post-Soviet Russian economy.
Trump may be a good president for the top 1% – and especially for the top 0.1% – but he has not been good for everyone else. If fully implemented, the 2017 tax cut will result in tax increases for most households in the second, third and fourth income quintiles.
Given tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the ultra-rich and corporations, it should come as no surprise that there was no significant change in the median US household’s disposable income between 2017 and 2018 (again, the most recent year with good data). The lion’s share of the increase in GDP is also going to those at the top. Real median weekly earnings are only 2.6% above their level when Trump took office. And these increases have not offset long periods of wage stagnation. For example, the median wage of a full-time male worker (and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones) is still more than 3% below what it was 40 years ago. Nor has there been much progress on reducing racial disparities: in the third quarter of 2019, median weekly earnings for black men working full-time were less than three-quarters the level for white men.
Making matters worse, the growth that has occurred is not environmentally sustainable – and even less so thanks to the Trump administration’s gutting of regulations that have passed stringent cost-benefit analyses. The air will be less breathable, the water less drinkable and the planet more subject to climate change. In fact, losses related to climate change have already reached new highs in the US, which has suffered more property damage than any other country – reaching some 1.5% of GDP in 2017.
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800bn in 2018 – by some of the most profitable companies in the US and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1tn in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment. And even with weak investment, the US had to borrow massively abroad: the most recent data show foreign borrowing at almost $500bn a year, with an increase of more than 10% in the country’s net indebtedness position in one year alone.
Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016. The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016. The US did get a new North American trade agreement, without the investment agreement provisions that the Business Roundtable wanted, without the provisions raising drug prices that the pharmaceutical companies wanted and with better labour and environmental provisions. Trump, a self-proclaimed master dealmaker, lost on almost every front in his negotiations with congressional Democrats, resulting in a slightly improved trade arrangement.
And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level. Even the unemployment rate, at a 50-year low, masks economic fragility. The employment rate for working-age males and females, while rising, has increased less than during the Obama recovery and is still significantly below that of other developed countries. The pace of job creation is also markedly slower than it was under Obama.
Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
Again, the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people cannot work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970, with some 2 million people currently behind bars – or so discouraged that they are not actively seeking jobs are not counted as “unemployed.” But, of course, they are not employed. Nor is it a surprise that a country that doesn’t provide affordable childcare or guarantee family leave would have lower female employment – adjusted for population, more than ten percentage points lower – than other developed countries.
Even judging by GDP, the Trump economy falls short. Last quarter’s growth was only 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5% or even 6% Trump promised, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term. That is a remarkably poor performance considering the stimulus provided by the $1tn deficit and ultra-low interest rates. This is not an accident or just a matter of bad luck: Trump’s brand is uncertainty, volatility and prevarication, whereas trust, stability, and confidence are essential for growth. So is equality, according to the International Monetary Fund.
So, Trump deserves failing grades not only on essential tasks such as upholding democracy and preserving our planet. He should not get a pass on the economy, either.
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
Ⓒ Project Syndicate


theguardian--2020-01-20--Trump’s greatest ally in the coming election? Facebook | John Harris

If you want to know why the worst president in US history currently stands a very good chance of winning again , consider a few facts .
Donald Trump ’ s re-election campaign is already in full flow , brimming with cash , drenching social media with targeted ads , and reaping oceans of data on voters .
The impeachment drama is , predictably enough , the perfect opportunity to put out material that plays to the idea of Trump as a noble maverick , struggling against the liberal conspiracy implied by his online questionnaires : “ Do you agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Do you believe the Democrats will try and make up LIES to impeach the president ?
” The Democrats ’ most likely challenger , by contrast , made headlines last year when he cut his online ad budget , and decided to concentrate on TV advertising : a very odd decision by Joe Biden , but there we are .
What really helps Trump is Facebook .
Last October , it became clear that , whatever its collective remorse about the role it had played in Trump ’ s election three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had quietly exempted advertising by parties and candidates from its regulations on truth and falsehood .
After the flurry of criticism that followed , there was speculation that Facebook might shift – on both that policy , and the kind of micro-targeting of adverts that makes it almost impossible to scrutinise what a candidate is saying to voters , and why ( the Trump campaign is currently reckoned to be launching more than 1,000 new micro-targeted Facebook ads every day ) .
But earlier this month there came confirmation that on these two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remain unchanged .
Cosmetically at least , some other internet giants have been tightening up .
Not that it absolves Twitter of much of the blame for spreading hatred and misinformation – or indeed , hosting Trump ’ s personal feed – but in October last year it banned almost all political advertising .
Again , Google is hardly free of responsibility for encouraging the worst kind of online politicking , but it has stopped political advertisers targeting people based on their political affiliation , and promised to take action against “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by contrast , isn ’ t moving .
It may have shone some light on political ads via new transparency tools , announced that users will now have the option of seeing fewer ads about “ political and social issues ” , and increased its efforts against foreign interference , but the most egregious aspect of the way it treats politics remains untouched .
When I contacted the company ’ s press office , I received an email from a global “ CEO advisory firm ” called Teneo that requested I paraphrase Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not its role to “ referee ” political debates and prevent politicians ’ messages reaching their intended audience ; and that targeted ads are considered a good thing not just by political campaigns , but charities and NGOs .
Self-evidently , the problem with that defence is that it leaves candidates and campaigns free to lie with impunity , and micro-targeting makes doing so even more mouthwatering .
An example : in October last year , Trump ’ s organisation released an ad falsely alleging that Biden had offered the Ukrainian authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a company linked to his son .
CNN refused to air it ; Facebook had no such qualms .
There will be plenty more of this stuff .
It is interesting to note that Facebook ’ s hands-off approach to political lying has reportedly been endorsed by Peter Thiel , the Trump-backing billionaire who sits on Facebook ’ s board .
If you want to understand the kind of thinking he supports , a good place to start is the recent leaked memo written by Andrew “ Boz ” Bosworth , Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice-president ” .
Trump won three years ago , he says , because “ he ran the single best digital ad campaign I ’ ve ever seen from any advertiser ” , and this year Facebook ’ s ad policies “ very well [ sic ] may lead to the same result ” .
When it comes to the relevance of Facebook ’ s political ads policy to Trump ’ s chances , Bosworth goes all mystical .
“ I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frodo offers the ring to Galadriel and she imagines using the power righteously , at first , but knows it will eventually corrupt her .
As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome , I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.
” But what of the fact that Facebook ’ s algorithms privilege the most hysterical , mendacious , loathsome kind of political discourse ?
“ The algorithms are primarily exposing the desires of humanity itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Bosworth , going on to claim that “ corporate paternalism ” is not the answer , and that “ giving people tools to make their own decisions is good , but trying to force decisions upon them rarely works ( for them or for you ) ” .
Facebook , in other words , just presents you with the poison , often in a micro-targeted form that makes it even more tempting : if you want to imbibe it , that ’ s up to you .
In this vision , Tolkien-esque @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Such is the variety of corporate responsibility offered by arguably the most powerful corporation in the world .
The traditional media might still understand elections in terms of speeches , campaign launches and set-piece interviews .
But as evidenced by Boris Johnson ’ s victory after weeks of eluding any meaningful scrutiny , this is not where politics really happens any more .
Facebook offers a dual enticement to campaigns and candidates : you can spend no end of money spreading falsehoods , and also be assured that you are using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ever invented .
It hardly absolves Labour of its serial failures , but this formula was right at the heart of the Tory win in December : towards the end of the election , it was revealed that 88 % of Conservative advertisements published on Facebook over a four-day period contained claims deemed to be misleading by Full Fact , a fact-checking organisation used by Facebook itself ( the figure for Labour material was 7 % ) .
Honourable debate might have symbolically breathed its last on the occasion in 2008 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at one of his rallies when she implied that Barack Obama was not American .
There may well be chilling auguries of the future in the kind of facts pointed out last week by my colleague Emily Bell – that the Indian prime minister , Narendra Modi , an expert at internet politics , has never held a press conference , that the White House press secretary has not delivered a public briefing in six months – and , for that matter , that the new British government apparently wants precious little to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programmes .
We are , it seems , in the opening stages of a completely new age , in which victory will usually go , as the New York Times put it the other day , to those who specialise in “ emotionally charged , hyper-partisan content , regardless of its factual accuracy ” , and very nasty techniques indeed : witness the 2016 Trump campaign targeting anti-Hillary Clinton material at black Democrat supporters via Facebook , so as to suppress turnout .
Something lodges itself in my head anew every time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it began with benign intentions , it has long since failed to match its power with the commensurate responsibility .
After a fashion , Zuckerberg himself seems to agree that there is a case for action .
“ There are a number of areas where I believe governments establishing clearer rules would be helpful , including around elections , harmful content , privacy , and data portability , ” he said in his recent new year message .
What is actually required is enforced break-up , tight subsequent regulation and the belated realisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy to pieces in the name of bringing people closer together – all thoughts now fashionable among people at the top of the Democratic party .
Facebook ’ s unprecedented corporate power , however , offers an answer to that : the fact that Trump may well beat whichever Democrat is selected to challenge him , using all the shadowy sophistry Facebook puts at his disposal .

If you want to know why the worst president in US history currently stands a very good chance of winning again, consider a few facts. Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is already in full flow, brimming with cash, drenching social media with targeted ads, and reaping oceans of data on voters.
The impeachment drama is, predictably enough, the perfect opportunity to put out material that plays to the idea of Trump as a noble maverick, struggling against the liberal conspiracy implied by his online questionnaires: “Do you agree that President Trump has done nothing wrong? Do you believe the Democrats will try and make up LIES to impeach the president?”
The Democrats’ most likely challenger, by contrast, made headlines last year when he cut his online ad budget, and decided to concentrate on TV advertising: a very odd decision by Joe Biden, but there we are.
What really helps Trump is Facebook. Last October, it became clear that, whatever its collective remorse about the role it had played in Trump’s election three years before, Mark Zuckerberg’s company had quietly exempted advertising by parties and candidates from its regulations on truth and falsehood. After the flurry of criticism that followed, there was speculation that Facebook might shift – on both that policy, and the kind of micro-targeting of adverts that makes it almost impossible to scrutinise what a candidate is saying to voters, and why (the Trump campaign is currently reckoned to be launching more than 1,000 new micro-targeted Facebook ads every day).
But earlier this month there came confirmation that on these two crucial points, company policy was going to remain unchanged.
Cosmetically at least, some other internet giants have been tightening up. Not that it absolves Twitter of much of the blame for spreading hatred and misinformation – or indeed, hosting Trump’s personal feed – but in October last year it banned almost all political advertising. Again, Google is hardly free of responsibility for encouraging the worst kind of online politicking, but it has stopped political advertisers targeting people based on their political affiliation, and promised to take action against “demonstrably false claims”.
Facebook, by contrast, isn’t moving. It may have shone some light on political ads via new transparency tools, announced that users will now have the option of seeing fewer ads about “political and social issues”, and increased its efforts against foreign interference, but the most egregious aspect of the way it treats politics remains untouched.
When I contacted the company’s press office, I received an email from a global “CEO advisory firm” called Teneo that requested I paraphrase Facebook’s company line – that it is not its role to “referee” political debates and prevent politicians’ messages reaching their intended audience; and that targeted ads are considered a good thing not just by political campaigns, but charities and NGOs. Self-evidently, the problem with that defence is that it leaves candidates and campaigns free to lie with impunity, and micro-targeting makes doing so even more mouthwatering.
An example: in October last year, Trump’s organisation released an ad falsely alleging that Biden had offered the Ukrainian authorities $1bn if they dropped an investigation into a company linked to his son. CNN refused to air it; Facebook had no such qualms. There will be plenty more of this stuff.
It is interesting to note that Facebook’s hands-off approach to political lying has reportedly been endorsed by Peter Thiel, the Trump-backing billionaire who sits on Facebook’s board. If you want to understand the kind of thinking he supports, a good place to start is the recent leaked memo written by Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, Facebook’s “augmented and virtual reality vice-president”. Trump won three years ago, he says, because “he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser”, and this year Facebook’s ad policies “very well [sic] may lead to the same result”.
When it comes to the relevance of Facebook’s political ads policy to Trump’s chances, Bosworth goes all mystical. “I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment,” he says. “Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadriel and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her. As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.”
But what of the fact that Facebook’s algorithms privilege the most hysterical, mendacious, loathsome kind of political discourse? “The algorithms are primarily exposing the desires of humanity itself, for better or worse,” says Bosworth, going on to claim that “corporate paternalism” is not the answer, and that “giving people tools to make their own decisions is good, but trying to force decisions upon them rarely works (for them or for you)”. Facebook, in other words, just presents you with the poison, often in a micro-targeted form that makes it even more tempting: if you want to imbibe it, that’s up to you. In this vision, Tolkien-esque cod-philosophy is less relevant than reckless libertarianism. Such is the variety of corporate responsibility offered by arguably the most powerful corporation in the world.
The traditional media might still understand elections in terms of speeches, campaign launches and set-piece interviews. But as evidenced by Boris Johnson’s victory after weeks of eluding any meaningful scrutiny, this is not where politics really happens any more. Facebook offers a dual enticement to campaigns and candidates: you can spend no end of money spreading falsehoods, and also be assured that you are using the most effective means of political communication anyone has ever invented.
It hardly absolves Labour of its serial failures, but this formula was right at the heart of the Tory win in December: towards the end of the election, it was revealed that 88% of Conservative advertisements published on Facebook over a four-day period contained claims deemed to be misleading by Full Fact, a fact-checking organisation used by Facebook itself (the figure for Labour material was 7%).
Honourable debate might have symbolically breathed its last on the occasion in 2008 when Senator John McCain silenced an audience member at one of his rallies when she implied that Barack Obama was not American. There may well be chilling auguries of the future in the kind of facts pointed out last week by my colleague Emily Bell – that the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, an expert at internet politics, has never held a press conference, that the White House press secretary has not delivered a public briefing in six months – and, for that matter, that the new British government apparently wants precious little to do with mainstream news and current affairs programmes.
We are, it seems, in the opening stages of a completely new age, in which victory will usually go, as the New York Times put it the other day, to those who specialise in “emotionally charged, hyper-partisan content, regardless of its factual accuracy”, and very nasty techniques indeed: witness the 2016 Trump campaign targeting anti-Hillary Clinton material at black Democrat supporters via Facebook, so as to suppress turnout.
Something lodges itself in my head anew every time I write about Facebook: that even if it began with benign intentions, it has long since failed to match its power with the commensurate responsibility. After a fashion, Zuckerberg himself seems to agree that there is a case for action. “There are a number of areas where I believe governments establishing clearer rules would be helpful, including around elections, harmful content, privacy, and data portability,” he said in his recent new year message.
What is actually required is enforced break-up, tight subsequent regulation and the belated realisation that Facebook has come close to tearing democracy to pieces in the name of bringing people closer together – all thoughts now fashionable among people at the top of the Democratic party. Facebook’s unprecedented corporate power, however, offers an answer to that: the fact that Trump may well beat whichever Democrat is selected to challenge him, using all the shadowy sophistry Facebook puts at his disposal.


theguardian--2020-01-20--Trump impeachment: what happens after the articles are sent to the Senate?

On Tuesday at 1pm ET , the Senate will convene to approve rules for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and to hear opening arguments in the case .
The proceedings could result in the president ’ s removal from office – but that is seen as unlikely .
Here ’ s what will happen next : The Senate must vote on a resolution laying out ground rules for the trial including who the key players will be , how long they will get to present their cases and other matters .
The majority leader , Mitch McConnell , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial without an immediate provision for witness testimony , which could be secured later during the trial .
However , McConnell said he did not have the votes to dismiss the impeachment articles out of hand .
After the oath , the trial proper will begin – although there could be a short adjournment to allow the sides to prepare .
Impeachment managers will make their case , to be followed by the defense .
Senators may not speak during the proceedings but may submit written questions to the chief justice who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question of witnesses and other matters would be decided on the fly by majority vote .
A time limit for the proceedings will be established in the initial Senate vote .
Both the prosecution and defence may – in theory , depending on the rules agreed for the trial – bring in witnesses , who may be examined and cross-examined .
Former national security adviser John Bolton and former vice-president Joe Biden have both said that they would be prepared to testify if subpoenaed .
The Senate may try to alter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting forward a motion to restrict or increase it .
The prosecution and the defence will put forward their final statements , with the House managers going last , giving the House of Representatives the first and last word .
The senators deliberate on the case .
In the past this has happened behind closed doors and out of public view .
But that ’ s open to change , too .
The senators vote separately on the two articles of impeachment – the first charging Trump with abuse of power , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A two-thirds majority of present senators – 67 ayes if everyone votes – on either article would be enough to convict Trump and remove him from office .
But that would require about 20 Republican defections and is unlikely .
The more likely outcome is a Trump acquittal , at which point the process is concluded , barring some highly unusual development such as the House taking action to impeach Trump again .

On Tuesday at 1pm ET, the Senate will convene to approve rules for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and to hear opening arguments in the case.
The proceedings could result in the president’s removal from office – but that is seen as unlikely.
Here’s what will happen next:
Senate votes on ground rules
The Senate must vote on a resolution laying out ground rules for the trial including who the key players will be, how long they will get to present their cases and other matters. The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has said he has the votes to open the trial without an immediate provision for witness testimony, which could be secured later during the trial. However, McConnell said he did not have the votes to dismiss the impeachment articles out of hand.
Senate trial
After the oath, the trial proper will begin – although there could be a short adjournment to allow the sides to prepare. Impeachment managers will make their case, to be followed by the defense. Senators may not speak during the proceedings but may submit written questions to the chief justice who would cause them to be read. The question of witnesses and other matters would be decided on the fly by majority vote. A time limit for the proceedings will be established in the initial Senate vote.
Evidence examination
Both the prosecution and defence may – in theory, depending on the rules agreed for the trial – bring in witnesses, who may be examined and cross-examined. The former national security adviser John Bolton and former vice-president Joe Biden have both said that they would be prepared to testify if subpoenaed. The Senate may try to alter the parameters of the evidence under examination by putting forward a motion to restrict or increase it.
Closing arguments
The prosecution and the defence will put forward their final statements, with the House managers going last, giving the House of Representatives the first and last word.
Deliberation
The senators deliberate on the case. In the past this has happened behind closed doors and out of public view. But that’s open to change, too.
Final vote
The senators vote separately on the two articles of impeachment – the first charging Trump with abuse of power, the second charging him with obstruction of Congress. A two-thirds majority of present senators – 67 ayes if everyone votes – on either article would be enough to convict Trump and remove him from office. But that would require about 20 Republican defections and is unlikely. The more likely outcome is a Trump acquittal, at which point the process is concluded, barring some highly unusual development such as the House taking action to impeach Trump again.


theguardian--2020-01-20--Trump lawyers argue impeachment case is 'flimsy' as trial looms

Lawyers acting on behalf of Donald Trump on Monday branded the impeachment case against him “ flimsy ” and a “ dangerous perversion of the constitution ” , setting the stage for the opening of his long-awaited Senate trial on Tuesday .
As the president prepared to jet off to Davos , where he is set to give a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday , the White House submitted its formal trial defence brief , a 110-page document in which it also claimed the impeachment process has been a “ charade ” and insisted Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealings with Ukraine .
The brief – submitted as a counter to a document filed by the House Democrats on Saturday – presented the most thorough outline to date of the lines of defence that Trump ’ s lawyers plan to use against the case to remove the president at his congressional trial , scheduled to begin in the US Senate on Tuesday .
“ The articles of impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the constitution and to our democratic institutions , ” his legal team wrote , adding : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigged process that brought them here – are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected .
They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails.
” Trump and his legal team urge a swift resolution to the trial , concluding with Trump ’ s decisive acquittal on a vote by the Republicans who dominate the Senate .
Monday ’ s brief added : “ The process that brought the articles here violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.
” The Democrats ’ case centres around a 25 July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , in which Trump asked his counterpart to do him a “ favour ” and investigate both a conspiracy theory concerning election interference and ties between the former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter and the eastern European country .
Monday ’ s brief stated that the two articles do not amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not aimed at looking for the truth .
“ Instead , House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way – any way – to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election , ” wrote Trump ’ s legal team .
“ All of that is a dangerous perversion of the constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.
” They also claimed that the articles of impeachment are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts and accused Democrats of watering down the grounds for impeachment .
It comes after the House impeachment managers , who will act as prosecutors in Trump ’ s trial , released their own legal brief on Saturday in a 111-page document .
In a joint statement , the House managers , Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler , Zoe Lofgren , Hakeem Jeffries , Val Demings , Jason Crow and Sylvia Garcia , said the case against Trump is “ simple , the facts are indisputable and the evidence is overwhelming : President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain , thereby jeopardizing our national security , the integrity of our elections and our democracy ” .
They added : “ And when the president got caught , he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House ’ s investigation into his misconduct.
” Trump ’ s legal team issued an initial response on Saturday that claimed the impeachment articles are “ constitutionally invalid ” and “ a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – now just months away ” .
The House of Representatives now has until midday Tuesday to respond to Trump ’ s defense – an hour before the start of the impeachment trial , scheduled for 1pm .
Senators , who will act as the jury , will then sit six days a week , Monday to Saturday , between 1pm and 5 or 6pm ET .
With a Republican-controlled Senate and a two-thirds majority needed to convict on either of the two articles – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be removed .
However , Democrats only need four Republicans to form a majority to win votes over rules and witnesses .
Chuck Schumer , the Senate minority leader , said on Sunday that he wants to hold a vote on Tuesday on whether witnesses and additional evidence will be allowed to be brought before the trial if the Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , does not include them in his proposal .
On Monday morning Trump appeared to tweet in response , saying : “ They didn ’ t want John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were in too much of a rush .
Now they want them all in the Senate .
Not supposed to be that way !
” He added : “ Cryin ’ Chuck Schumer is now asking for ‘ fairness ’ , when he and the Democrat House members worked together to make sure I got ZERO fairness in the House .
So , what else is new ?
” The White House document advises the Senate to “ speedily reject these deficient articles of impeachment and acquit the president ” .

Lawyers acting on behalf of Donald Trump on Monday branded the impeachment case against him “flimsy” and a “dangerous perversion of the constitution”, setting the stage for the opening of his long-awaited Senate trial on Tuesday.
As the president prepared to jet off to Davos, where he is set to give a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday, the White House submitted its formal trial defence brief, a 110-page document in which it also claimed the impeachment process has been a “charade” and insisted Trump did “absolutely nothing wrong” in his dealings with Ukraine.
The brief – submitted as a counter to a document filed by the House Democrats on Saturday – presented the most thorough outline to date of the lines of defence that Trump’s lawyers plan to use against the case to remove the president at his congressional trial, scheduled to begin in the US Senate on Tuesday.
“The articles of impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the constitution and to our democratic institutions,” his legal team wrote, adding: “The articles themselves – and the rigged process that brought them here – are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected. They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails.”
Trump and his legal team urge a swift resolution to the trial, concluding with Trump’s decisive acquittal on a vote by the Republicans who dominate the Senate.
Monday’s brief added: “The process that brought the articles here violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years. Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”
Timeline 2019 Trump impeachment inquiry Show April 2019 - May 2019 Through his personal emissary, Rudy Giuliani, Trump applies pressure on Ukraine to announce investigations tied to Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Ukrainian president-elect, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, meets with subordinates to discuss how to stay out of it. 3 July 2019 Lt Col Alexander Vindman, top adviser on Ukraine on the National Security Council, is made aware of the suspension of military aid for Ukraine. 10 July 2019 Trump emissaries at the White House ask top Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden, shocking US national security officials. According to multiple accounts, after EU ambassador Gordon Sondland makes the Biden ask, then national security adviser John Bolton abruptly terminates the meeting, later calling it a “drug deal”. The Office of Management and Budget later informs the Pentagon and state department that Trump has suspended $391m in military aid for Ukraine. 25 July 2019 Trump speaks on the phone with Zelenskiy, reminding him that “the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine” and then asking for a “favor”. Trump wants Ukraine to announce investigations designed to make Joe Biden look bad and to cast doubt on Russian tampering in the 2016 US election. 12 August 2019 A whistleblower complaint against Trump is secretly filed to the inspector general of the intelligence community. For six weeks, the Trump administration will block Congress from obtaining the complaint. 1 September 2019 Bilateral meetings in Warsaw, Poland. In testimony, Sondland says, “I now recall speaking individually with [Zelenskiy aide Andriy] Yermak, where I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.” 24 September 2019 Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry, accusing Trump of “a betrayal of his oath of office, a betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections”. The following day, the White House releases a partial “transcript” of the 25 July call, hours before Trump’s first face-to-face meeting with Zelenskiy at the United Nations. 26 September 2019 The whistleblower complaint is released. Citing “more than half-a-dozen US officials”, it presents an accurate version of the Trump-Zelenskiy call and alleges that the White House tried to cover up the call. 8 October 2019 The White House releases a letter refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and accusing Democrats of trying to reverse the result of the 2016 election. 3 November 2019 The House votes on a resolution laying out a process to move impeachment from closed-door depositions to open hearings. 5 November 2019 The impeachment committees begin releasing testimony transcripts. The overlapping testimonies tell the same story, of demands by US officials of Ukraine steadily ratcheting up between May and September, from a demand to investigate corruption to a demand that “President Zelenskiy to go to a microphone and say ‘investigations’, ‘Biden’, and ‘Clinton’.” 13 November 2019 Public impeachment hearings begin with the testimony of ambassador Bill Taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state George P Kent. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch follows on 15 November. 7 December 2019 The House judiciary committee releases a report on the constitutional grounds for impeachment on Saturday. Shortly after that, Donald Trump once again insists the whole thing is a “witch-hunt” and “a total hoax” 10 December 2019 Democrats unveil articles of impeachment against Trump, concerning abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 13 December 2019 A day after the House judiciary committee abruptly postponed a historic vote to advance articles of impeachment following a 14-hour meeting that devolved into a rancorous, deeply partisan debate that stretched late into the night, it reconvenes and votes to move the two articles to the House floor. 18 December 2019 The House of Representatives prepares to approve articles of impeachment against a president for only the third time.
16 January 2020 Trump's impeachment trial formally starts, as the US Government Accountability Office finds suspension of military aid at the president’s direction violated the law. Tom McCarthy and Martin Belam Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
The Democrats’ case centres around a 25 July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump asked his counterpart to do him a “favour” and investigate both a conspiracy theory concerning election interference and ties between the former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter and the eastern European country.
Monday’s brief stated that the two articles do not amount to impeachable offenses and that the inquiry was not aimed at looking for the truth.
“Instead, House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way – any way – to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election,” wrote Trump’s legal team. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”
They also claimed that the articles of impeachment are “structurally deficient” because they charge multiple acts and accused Democrats of watering down the grounds for impeachment.
It comes after the House impeachment managers, who will act as prosecutors in Trump’s trial, released their own legal brief on Saturday in a 111-page document.
In a joint statement, the House managers, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow and Sylvia Garcia, said the case against Trump is “simple, the facts are indisputable and the evidence is overwhelming: President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections and our democracy”.
They added: “And when the president got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct.”
Trump’s legal team issued an initial response on Saturday that claimed the impeachment articles are “constitutionally invalid” and “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election – now just months away”.
The House of Representatives now has until midday Tuesday to respond to Trump’s defense – an hour before the start of the impeachment trial, scheduled for 1pm.
Senators, who will act as the jury, will then sit six days a week, Monday to Saturday, between 1pm and 5 or 6pm ET.
With a Republican-controlled Senate and a two-thirds majority needed to convict on either of the two articles – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – it appears highly unlikely that Trump will be removed. However, Democrats only need four Republicans to form a majority to win votes over rules and witnesses.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said on Sunday that he wants to hold a vote on Tuesday on whether witnesses and additional evidence will be allowed to be brought before the trial if the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, does not include them in his proposal.
On Monday morning Trump appeared to tweet in response, saying: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!”
He added: “Cryin’ Chuck Schumer is now asking for ‘fairness’, when he and the Democrat House members worked together to make sure I got ZERO fairness in the House. So, what else is new?”
The White House document advises the Senate to “speedily reject these deficient articles of impeachment and acquit the president”.


theguardian--2020-01-20--What are the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump?

The impeachment of Donald Trump brings against him congressional charges that he abused his power as president and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct in relation to Ukraine .
The House voted in December to pass the articles of impeachment , or charges , and these articles were delivered to the Senate in January as the case for the prosecution , in preparation for the Senate ’ s trial of the president .
The full articles can be read here , and are summarized below .
The constitution provides that the House of Representatives “ shall have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for , and conviction of , treason , bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors .
In his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and , to the best of his ability , preserve , protect and defend the constitution of the United States , and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the presidency , in that : Using the powers of his high office , President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government , Ukraine , in the 2020 United States presidential election .
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election , harm the election prospects of a political opponent , and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage .
President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations .
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit .
In so doing , President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process .
He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation .
Donald J Trump has directed the unprecedented , categorical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment .
As part of this impeachment inquiry , the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices , and current and former officials .
In response , without lawful cause or excuse , President Trump directed executive branch agencies , offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas .
President Trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the House of Representatives .

The impeachment of Donald Trump brings against him congressional charges that he abused his power as president and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct in relation to Ukraine. The House voted in December to pass the articles of impeachment, or charges, and these articles were delivered to the Senate in January as the case for the prosecution, in preparation for the Senate’s trial of the president.
The full articles can be read here, and are summarized below.
Article 1: abuse of power
The constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment” and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J Trump has abused the powers of the presidency, in that: Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election.
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation.
Article 2: obstruction of Congress
Donald J Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment.
As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials. In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the House of Representatives.


theguardian--2020-01-20--Trump impeachment: Schumer ready to 'force votes for witnesses'

Senate Democrats were ramping up pressure for witnesses to be called in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump before the historic process gets fully under way on Capitol Hill on Tuesday – even as the president plans to be away at the elite economic and political forum in Davos , Switzerland , during opening arguments .
Trump already has no plans to appear at his own Senate trial and will be represented by a legal team that includes some controversial figures .
But the symbolism of his being out of the country at a very see-and-be-seen annual event that draws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress during its investigation into his conduct with Ukraine is telling .
He is due to give a keynote speech at the forum as the drama unfolds in Washington .
The Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , said that he aims to compel the chamber as early as Tuesday to hold a vote on whether witnesses and extra evidence can be brought before the impeachment trial , and he turned up the pressure on moderate Republicans to side with the minority to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York on Sunday evening , Schumer said he stands ready to “ force votes for witnesses and documents ” at the trial if the Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell – who has yet to set out the exact details of how he proposes that the trial will proceed – does not call for such a vote .
“ We have the right to do it , we are going to do it and we are going to do it at the beginning on Tuesday if leader McConnell doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Schumer said .
Trump has been keen for the Senate to dismiss the charges against him without even going through the motions of a trial .
McConnell intends to proceed with a trial but there has been no agreement to call any outside witnesses , such as the former national security adviser John Bolton or the acting chief of staff , Mick Mulvaney , who could shed even more light on the president ’ s dealing with the Ukrainians and the pivotal role of Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelenskiy , in which Trump asked his counterpart to do him a “ favor ” and investigate both a conspiracy theory concerning election interference and ties between the former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter and the eastern European country .
Trump ’ s team is entitled to file a detailed legal brief in the case before midday on Monday .
An initial brief on Saturday argued fiercely against the impeachment charges .
“ This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and interfere with the 2020 election , now just months away , ” Trump ’ s lawyers said , also claiming the charges against the president were invalid as they did not concern a crime .
Schumer indicated he was determined to press for witnesses and documents that have been blocked to be brought forward either before or after opening arguments .
“ We ’ re allowed to amend it , and ask for them .
I am allowed to amend it – and then if they say well let ’ s wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want a vote after they hear the arguments as well and we will do everything we can to force votes again , ” he said .
On Saturday , the House ’ s selected team of impeachment managers , who prosecute the case against Trump at trial , outlined their case in a 111-page legal brief .
In a joint statement , the seven managers , led by the Democratic intelligence committee chair , Adam Schiff , said their case was “ simple , the facts are indisputable , and the evidence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain , thereby jeopardising our national security , the integrity of our elections , and our democracy .
“ And when the president got caught , he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House ’ s investigation into his misconduct.
” On Sunday , the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham , once a harsh critic and now a staunch Trump ally , said the latest hope from the president is that he wants the trial and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Senate majority to be out of the way by the annual presidential showcase event , the State of the Union address to Congress and the American people .
“ His mood is , to go to the state of the union [ on 4 February ] with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the rest of 2020 and what he wants to do for the next four years , ” Graham told Fox News Sunday .

Joanna Walters and Tom McCarthy in New York

Senate Democrats were ramping up pressure for witnesses to be called in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump before the historic process gets fully under way on Capitol Hill on Tuesday – even as the president plans to be away at the elite economic and political forum in Davos, Switzerland, during opening arguments.
Trump already has no plans to appear at his own Senate trial and will be represented by a legal team that includes some controversial figures. But the symbolism of his being out of the country at a very see-and-be-seen annual event that draws global leaders while he stands accused back home of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress during its investigation into his conduct with Ukraine is telling.
He is due to give a keynote speech at the forum as the drama unfolds in Washington.
The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said that he aims to compel the chamber as early as Tuesday to hold a vote on whether witnesses and extra evidence can be brought before the impeachment trial, and he turned up the pressure on moderate Republicans to side with the minority to achieve that.
In a press conference in New York on Sunday evening, Schumer said he stood ready to “force votes for witnesses and documents” at the trial if the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell – who has yet to set out the exact details of how he proposes that the trial will proceed – does not call for such a vote.
“We have the right to do it, we are going to do it and we are going to do it at the beginning on Tuesday if leader McConnell doesn’t call for these witnesses in his proposal,” Schumer said.
Trump has been keen for the Senate to dismiss the charges against him without even going through the motions of a trial. McConnell intends to proceed with a trial but there has been no agreement to call any outside witnesses, such as the former national security adviser John Bolton or the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who could shed even more light on the president’s dealing with the Ukrainians and the pivotal role of Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
The case hinges on a 25 July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump asked his counterpart to do him a “favor” and investigate both a conspiracy theory concerning election interference and ties between the former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter and the eastern European country.
Q&A How do you impeach the US president? Show Article 1 of the United States constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of the president. A president can be impeached if they are judged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" – although the US Constitution does not specify what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are.
The formal process starts with the House of Representatives passing articles of impeachment, the equivalent of congressional charges. According to arcane Senate rules, after the House notifies the Senate that impeachment managers have been selected, the secretary of the Senate, Julie Adams, tells the House that the Senate is ready to receive the articles. Then impeachment managers appear before the Senate to “exhibit” the articles, and the Senate confirms it will consider the case. The presiding officer of the Senate notifies the supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, of the impending trial. Roberts arrives in the Senate to administer an oath to members. The presiding officer will then administer this oath to senators: “I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help me God.” The Senate must vote on a resolution laying out ground rules for the trial including who the key players will be, how long they will get to present their cases and other matters. After the Senate is “organized”, the rules decree, “a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate”. A president has never appeared at his own impeachment trial. Trump will be represented by the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and his personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, among others. After the oath, the trial proper will begin. Senators may not speak during the proceedings but may submit written questions. The question of witnesses and other matters would be decided on the fly by majority vote. A time limit for the proceedings will be established in the initial Senate vote. The senators will then deliberate on the case. In the past this has happened behind closed doors and out of public view. The senators vote separately on the two articles of impeachment – the first charging Trump with abuse of power, the second charging him with obstruction of Congress. A two-thirds majority of present senators – 67 ayes if everyone votes – on either article would be enough to convict Trump and remove him from office. But that would require about 20 Republicans defections and is unlikely. The more likely outcome is a Trump acquittal, at which point the process is concluded. Two presidents have previously been impeached, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Andrew Johnson in 1868, though neither was removed from office as a result. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before there was a formal vote to impeach him. Tom McCarthy in New York Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.
Trump’s team is entitled to file a detailed legal brief in the case before midday on Monday. An initial brief on Saturday argued fiercely against the impeachment charges.
“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away,” Trump’s lawyers said, also claiming the charges against the president were invalid as they did not concern a crime.
Schumer indicated he was determined to press for witnesses and documents that have been blocked to be brought forward either before or after opening arguments.
“We’re allowed to amend it, and ask for them. I am allowed to amend it – and then if they say well let’s wait and hear the arguments we’ll want a vote after they hear the arguments as well and we will do everything we can to force votes again,” he said.
On Saturday, the House’s selected team of impeachment managers, who prosecute the case against Trump at trial, outlined their case in a 111-page legal brief.
In a joint statement, the seven managers, led by the Democratic intelligence committee chair, Adam Schiff, said their case was “simple, the facts are indisputable, and the evidence is overwhelming: President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardising our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy.
“And when the president got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct.”
On Sunday, the Republican senator Lindsey Graham, once a harsh critic and now a staunch Trump ally, said the latest hope from the president is that he wants the trial and his expected acquittal at the hands of the Republican Senate majority to be out of the way by the annual presidential showcase event, the State of the Union address to Congress and the American people.
“His mood is, to go to the State of the Union [on 4 February] with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the rest of 2020 and what he wants to do for the next four years,” Graham told Fox News Sunday.


theguardian--2020-01-21--How NFL running back Justin Jackson became an unexpected star of the left

Even in an era of anthem protests and White House boycotts , there is something about Justin Jackson that feels like a new mold for the politically energized athlete .
Jackson , a running back for the Los Angeles Chargers , has spent the first two years of his NFL career operating in a reserve role in one of the deepest backfields in the league .
But in the most left-wing corners of Twitter , Jackson has become an overnight star , trucking over centrist Democrats and neoliberals with a zeal usually accompanied by a rose emoji .
He derided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and chastised an MSNBC pundit who had spoken dismissively of Bernie Sanders , Jackson ’ s preferred 2020 hopeful ; he condemned the US drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and criticized the bellicosity of American media .
His Twitter following has swelled from just a little under 10,000 at the beginning of the year to more than 42,000 and climbing .
It ’ s all been part of a premeditated strategy for Jackson , who said he made it a point to increase his Twitter output after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolster Sanders ’ candidacy .
“ I ’ ve definitely ramped it up .
I wanted to be as helpful as I can to the cause , ” Jackson tells the Guardian .
“ I ’ m very busy during the season , putting a lot of hours in .
So it was the perfect storm with the new year and my season ending.
” And he sees parallels between the life of a politician and an athlete .
“ I want to push for things that help the most people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Bernie and progressive policies , ” he says .
“ For me , it ’ s consistency .
Being an athlete , consistent improvement is what I ’ m always thinking about .
For Bernie , it ’ s consistency in his policies , and really his principles .
He ’ s been fighting for these things , even when they weren ’ t on the minds of most Americans , when they weren ’ t polling well .
I know when it comes down to it , you ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nail for everything , and Bernie has a movement behind him .
He ’ s going to have to have a movement of people in the streets , putting pressure on Democrats and Republicans – especially Democrats – to come around and vote for his platform.
” Jackson is hardly the first professional athlete to use social media as a political vehicle , but few have done so as relentlessly as he has in the last few weeks .
It ’ s one thing to fire off a tweet in support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a poster .
Jackson ’ s politics are not just a peripheral part of his Twitter persona .
There ’ s a generational element to all that , of course – and not just because Jackson , like so many of his contemporaries , spends plenty of time online .
His political awakening came in 2016 , when he was in the midst of an illustrious career at Northwestern University .
That was the first year Jackson , 23 , was eligible to vote in a presidential election ; up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given politics much thought .
But Jackson was on a politically minded squad .
( In 2015 , the Northwestern football team tried unsuccessfully to become the first college athletes ’ union in the United States . )
And as he listened to his teammates discuss the 2016 race , Jackson ’ s interest was piqued .
“ We were having all these conversations in the locker room , ” he recalls .
“ I don ’ t like to talk out of my ass , so I knew I had to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensued was a crash course in progressive media .
He began reading The Intercept and The Nation , and tuning in to online programs like The Kyle Kulinski Show and The Rational National .
The Young Turks , a left-wing YouTube channel , quickly became one of Jackson ’ s touchstones .
“ I was not very politically active before that , which I think really helped me because once I became politically conscious I realized how much people are socialized and herded , ” he says .
“ You don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes Jackson illustrative of the type of voter who the Sanders campaign believes it has a unique ability to attract : young , previously disengaged from politics , unwedded to either party .
“ I ’ m hoping in reality it ’ s even better than the polling because of all the grassroots support he has , ” Jackson says of Sanders ’ chances .
“ I ’ m hoping he has a lot of people who didn ’ t vote .
That ’ s the biggest voting bloc : the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Chargers in the seventh round of the 2018 draft after finishing his four-year career at Northwestern as the school ’ s all-time leading rusher .
He said that some current teammates and former NFL players have applauded him for his politically charged tweets , and that no one associated with the Chargers franchise has told him to dial it back .
That last part can ’ t be taken for granted , given the ongoing league-wide freezeout of Colin Kaepernick , the uproar surrounding players kneeling during the national anthem and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick to sports.
” Jackson , who was still in college when the anthem protests began , said he has even greater appreciation for the likes of Kaepernick since entering the NFL .
“ It ’ s such a hard profession to stay in , ” Jackson says .
“ There ’ s so much focus you have to have on keeping your job , performing year in and year out , that it is a little bit harder to step outside the box .
It ’ s different than the NBA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leagues , where each player has their own face .
It ’ s a much more collective team game [ in the NFL ] .
It ’ s just a tough tough arena to be a part of and try to step outside the box , which is why I commend Kaepernick so much .
He ’ s definitely a martyr for the cause.
” Jackson says politics aren ’ t brought up as often in the Chargers locker room as when he was at Northwestern in part because of the structure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downtime and fewer opportunities for team-wide discussion .
But he said the roster includes both fellow leftists as well as “ Trump Republican voters of all races.
” “ I think it comes down to messaging .
A lot of times , you might not want to pay taxes if you don ’ t think those taxes are going to come back to help you .
When you ’ re not seeing your taxes work for you , of course you don ’ t want to pay your taxes , ” Jackson says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s where I think a true progressive candidacy and presidency can change a lot .
You could see your tax dollars working in a substantial way.
” Whether Jackson ends up making that case outside the confines of Twitter remains to be seen .
He has already donated to the Sanders ’ campaign but , for now , he says he ’ s more comfortable tweeting than canvassing .
“ I ’ ve been thinking about volunteering , but as far as walking around and talking to people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that .
”

Even in an era of anthem protests and White House boycotts, there is something about Justin Jackson that feels like a new mold for the politically energized athlete.
Jackson, a running back for the Los Angeles Chargers, has spent the first two years of his NFL career operating in a reserve role in one of the deepest backfields in the league. But in the most left-wing corners of Twitter, Jackson has become an overnight star, trucking over centrist Democrats and neoliberals with a zeal usually accompanied by a rose emoji.
He derided Pete Buttigieg as a “moderate Republican” and chastised an MSNBC pundit who had spoken dismissively of Bernie Sanders, Jackson’s preferred 2020 hopeful; he condemned the US drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and criticized the bellicosity of American media.
Offering $1000 to anyone who can show me one mainstream news channel (@CNN @MSNBC @FoxNews @ABC @NBCNews ) who in the last two decades has been wholesale against** one singular war America has waged or provoked. Serious offer. #StateMedia — Justin Jackson (@J_ManPrime21) January 4, 2020
His Twitter following has swelled from just a little under 10,000 at the beginning of the year to more than 42,000 and climbing. It’s all been part of a premeditated strategy for Jackson, who said he made it a point to increase his Twitter output after the Chargers’ season ended in an effort to bolster Sanders’ candidacy.
“I’ve definitely ramped it up. I wanted to be as helpful as I can to the cause,” Jackson tells the Guardian. “I’m very busy during the season, putting a lot of hours in. So it was the perfect storm with the new year and my season ending.”
And he sees parallels between the life of a politician and an athlete. “I want to push for things that help the most people, and that’s a progressive champion like Bernie and progressive policies,” he says. “For me, it’s consistency. Being an athlete, consistent improvement is what I’m always thinking about. For Bernie, it’s consistency in his policies, and really his principles. He’s been fighting for these things, even when they weren’t on the minds of most Americans, when they weren’t polling well. I know when it comes down to it, you’re going to have to fight the Republicans tooth and nail for everything, and Bernie has a movement behind him. He’s going to have to have a movement of people in the streets, putting pressure on Democrats and Republicans – especially Democrats – to come around and vote for his platform.”
Jackson is hardly the first professional athlete to use social media as a political vehicle, but few have done so as relentlessly as he has in the last few weeks. It’s one thing to fire off a tweet in support of a candidate; it’s another to be a poster. Jackson’s politics are not just a peripheral part of his Twitter persona.
There’s a generational element to all that, of course – and not just because Jackson, like so many of his contemporaries, spends plenty of time online. His political awakening came in 2016, when he was in the midst of an illustrious career at Northwestern University. That was the first year Jackson, 23, was eligible to vote in a presidential election; up to that point, he hadn’t given politics much thought. But Jackson was on a politically minded squad. (In 2015, the Northwestern football team tried unsuccessfully to become the first college athletes’ union in the United States.) And as he listened to his teammates discuss the 2016 race, Jackson’s interest was piqued.
“We were having all these conversations in the locker room,” he recalls. “I don’t like to talk out of my ass, so I knew I had to get more knowledgeable on these issues.”
What ensued was a crash course in progressive media. He began reading The Intercept and The Nation, and tuning in to online programs like The Kyle Kulinski Show and The Rational National. The Young Turks, a left-wing YouTube channel, quickly became one of Jackson’s touchstones.
“I was not very politically active before that, which I think really helped me because once I became politically conscious I realized how much people are socialized and herded,” he says. “You don’t even think for yourself.”
All that makes Jackson illustrative of the type of voter who the Sanders campaign believes it has a unique ability to attract: young, previously disengaged from politics, unwedded to either party.
“I’m hoping in reality it’s even better than the polling because of all the grassroots support he has,” Jackson says of Sanders’ chances. “I’m hoping he has a lot of people who didn’t vote. That’s the biggest voting bloc: the people who didn’t.”
Jackson was selected by the Chargers in the seventh round of the 2018 draft after finishing his four-year career at Northwestern as the school’s all-time leading rusher. He said that some current teammates and former NFL players have applauded him for his politically charged tweets, and that no one associated with the Chargers franchise has told him to dial it back. That last part can’t be taken for granted, given the ongoing league-wide freezeout of Colin Kaepernick, the uproar surrounding players kneeling during the national anthem and the oft-invoked admonitions for athletes to “stick to sports.”
Jackson, who was still in college when the anthem protests began, said he has even greater appreciation for the likes of Kaepernick since entering the NFL.
“It’s such a hard profession to stay in,” Jackson says. “There’s so much focus you have to have on keeping your job, performing year in and year out, that it is a little bit harder to step outside the box. It’s different than the NBA, it’s different than these other leagues, where each player has their own face. It’s a much more collective team game [in the NFL]. It’s just a tough tough arena to be a part of and try to step outside the box, which is why I commend Kaepernick so much. He’s definitely a martyr for the cause.”
Jackson says politics aren’t brought up as often in the Chargers locker room as when he was at Northwestern in part because of the structure of an NFL workday, which offers less downtime and fewer opportunities for team-wide discussion. But he said the roster includes both fellow leftists as well as “Trump Republican voters of all races.”
“I think it comes down to messaging. A lot of times, you might not want to pay taxes if you don’t think those taxes are going to come back to help you. When you’re not seeing your taxes work for you, of course you don’t want to pay your taxes,” Jackson says, in reference to his Trump-supporting peers. “That’s where I think a true progressive candidacy and presidency can change a lot. You could see your tax dollars working in a substantial way.”
Whether Jackson ends up making that case outside the confines of Twitter remains to be seen. He has already donated to the Sanders’ campaign but, for now, he says he’s more comfortable tweeting than canvassing.
“I’ve been thinking about volunteering, but as far as walking around and talking to people, I’m actually not that great at that.”


theguardian--2020-01-21--How a supreme court case paved the way for 2020's money-soaked election

The 2020 US elections are quickly shaping up to be a campaign cycle where political spending will reach staggering new heights .
Some predict 2020 will be the first presidential election where $ 10bn could be spent on political advertising – almost 60 % more than the money-soaked 2016 election .
Billionaires are already playing an outsized role – and not just the occupant of the White House and rising Democratic candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spending their own fortunes .
Some of the wealthiest people and companies in America are weighing into elections by injecting limitless sums of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action committees ( Pacs ) and outside groups that don ’ t have to disclose their donors .
Campaign financing has changed so dramatically since the landmark Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) ruling handed down by the supreme court exactly 10 years ago that the former president Jimmy Carter called it legalized bribery during the 2016 presidential election .
The Citizens decision removed limits on political communication spending from corporations , unions and not-for-profit organizations acting independently of the candidates ’ own campaigns , ruling it was effectively a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave rise to the current role Super Pacs and so-called dark money outside groups – where the origins of their funds are opaque – have in statewide and national campaigns .
And it ’ s a key reason why the 2020 presidential election is expected to see another eye-popping increase in political spending .
“ It ’ s effectively taken control of the message away from candidates and put it in to the hands of outside groups .
So a candidate in a competitive race is now one voice competing with multiple other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a less powerful voice from the standpoint of other outside groups engaged in a race , ” said Phil Cox , a veteran Republican strategist .
He added : “ It ’ s the reason why you have more self-funding millionaires and billionaires running for office .
It ’ s a system that effectively helps protect incumbents , limits more substantive messaging and likely leads to more negative campaigns.
” An analysis by GroupM , the advertising unit of WPP PLC , projected that in 2020 political ad spending would rise to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.6bn , already a large increase from previous presidential cycles .
A report from OpenSecrets found that political spending by outside groups had grown to $ 4.5bn over a decade , up from $ 750m in the previous two decades , and eclipsing candidates ’ own spending in hundreds of races .
And outside group spending is noticeably bipartisan .
According to figures provided to the Guardian by the progressive not-for-profit group Acronym , prominent liberal and conservative outside groups collectively spent more than $ 8.6m on Facebook ads in the past 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top official for US business tycoon Charles Koch - the world ’ s 11th richest man in 2019 , according to Forbes – said the conservative billionaire ’ s network of political groups could get involved in almost 200 federal and state elections around the US .
Meanwhile , a liberal dark money group closely linked to the progressive congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently spent $ 20,000 on ads against the former vice-president and leading 2020 moderate Democrat Joe Biden , targeting voters in South Carolina .
In the 2020 presidential arena , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he ’ s willing to pay as much as $ 1bn to help Democrats defeat Donald Trump , even if Bloomberg isn ’ t the Democratic nominee .
Even though Bloomberg is one of the newest candidates to enter the party ’ s primary , he has already poured $ 200m into television and digital ads to elevate his name identification and poll numbers .
Bloomberg was recently given an extension on filing financial disclosure information until 20 March , weeks after the Super Tuesday cluster of primary contests , by which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decided .
Tom Steyer has spent more than $ 120m in advertising to boost his campaign , according to an NPR analysis .
Together with Bloomberg , the two billionaires have spent $ 320m of the $ 409.8m Democratic candidates in the large – though shrinking – primary field have poured into advertising so far in the race .
Wealthy candidates who lean on their personal fortunes to fuel their presidential campaigns is not a new aspect of campaigning or a result of Citizens United .
But the spending by Bloomberg and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending for outside groups marks the new reality political operatives face .
The war chests of these two have allowed them to outlast several other candidates , with the most noticeable recent examples being Julián Castro and the Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker , who came into the race with higher political profiles but less money .
Montana ’ s governor , Steve Bullock , a former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who made opposition to dark money a pillar of his campaign , warned that the Citizens United ruling has hurt campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a statistic from the Issue One not-for-profit group that said members of Congress have spent more than 1,600,000 hours spending money “ instead of doing their jobs ” .
“ On the 10th anniversary I think we can say without any reservation that Citizens United has been a train wreck for representative democracy , ” Bullock said .
“ It ’ s been a train wreck for actual campaigns .
It ’ s been a train wreck for actual governing and for people ’ s trust in the overall system.
” Critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of increasing transparency in political spending argue that the center of gravity has shifted .
Adam Bozzi , the communications director for the End Citizens United Pac , warned that outside spending by groups that don ’ t have to disclose their donors will probably only increase .
“ I think it ’ s going to affect this upcoming cycle in the same way that ’ s affected the last several cycles , just a higher order of magnitude , ” Bozzi said , adding that “ the amount of money a mega-donor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s not even – it ’ s one donor that has the ability to throw $ 10m into a race.
” He added : “ So candidates or members of Congress are afraid to step outside their lane and sign on to a bill or work with someone on the other side of the aisle or even take a position or give a speech because they ’ re afraid that there will be $ 10m in a pot to spend against them the next day.
” But Bozzi pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marked by a rising movement against big-dollar fundraising and Super Pacs .
“ The good news is there ’ s a growing movement to stop it and there ’ s been progress , ” Bozzi said .
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have run presidential campaigns funded without high-dollar fundraisers or donations from corporate Pacs and a strong distaste for Super Pacs or outside group support .
Mark Brewer , an attorney and former chairman of the Michigan Democratic party , cautioned though that may only last as long as the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be all these independent groups out there on both sides , ” Brewer said .
“ And the candidates can ’ t stop it .
”

The 2020 US elections are quickly shaping up as a campaign cycle where political spending will reach staggering new heights.
Some predict 2020 will be the first presidential election where $10bn could be spent on political advertising – almost 60% more than the money-soaked 2016 election.
Billionaires are already playing an outsized role – and not just the occupant of the White House and Democratic candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spending their own fortunes. Some of the wealthiest people and companies in America are weighing into elections by injecting limitless sums of cash at all levels, fueling political action committees (Pacs) and outside groups that don’t have to disclose their donors.
Campaign financing has changed so dramatically since the landmark Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling handed down by the supreme court exactly 10 years ago that the former president Jimmy Carter called it legalized bribery.
The Citizens United decision removed limits on political communication spending from corporations, unions and not-for-profit organizations acting independently of the candidates’ own campaigns, ruling it was effectively a form of free speech.
Citizens United gave rise to the current role Super Pacs and so-called dark money outside groups – where the origins of their funds are opaque – have in statewide and national campaigns. And it’s a key reason why the 2020 presidential election is expected to see another eye-popping increase in political spending.
“It’s effectively taken control of the message away from candidates and put it in to the hands of outside groups. So a candidate in a competitive race is now one voice competing with multiple other voices and in most cases is now a less powerful voice from the standpoint of other outside groups engaged in a race,” said Phil Cox, a veteran Republican strategist.
It effectively helps protect incumbents, limits more substantive messaging and likely leads to more negative campaigns Phil Cox
He added: “It’s the reason why you have more self-funding millionaires and billionaires running for office. It’s a system that effectively helps protect incumbents, limits more substantive messaging and likely leads to more negative campaigns.”
An analysis by GroupM, the advertising unit of WPP, projected that in 2020 political ad spending would rise to $9.9bn. In 2016 it was $3.6bn, already a large increase from previous presidential cycles.
A report from OpenSecrets found that political spending by outside groups had grown to $4.5bn over a decade, up from $750m in the previous two decades, and eclipsing candidates’ own spending in hundreds of races.
And outside group spending is noticeably bipartisan. According to figures provided to the Guardian by the progressive not-for-profit group Acronym, prominent liberal and conservative outside groups collectively spent more than $8.6m on Facebook ads in the past 90 days.
And just last week a top official for US business tycoon Charles Koch - the world’s 11th richest man in 2019, according to Forbes – said the conservative billionaire’s network of political groups could get involved in almost 200 federal and state elections around the US.
Meanwhile, a liberal dark money group closely linked to the progressive congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently spent $20,000 on ads against the former vice-president and leading 2020 moderate Democrat Joe Biden, targeting voters in South Carolina.
In the 2020 presidential arena, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he’s willing to pay as much as $1bn to help Democrats defeat Donald Trump, even if Bloomberg isn’t the Democratic nominee. Even though Bloomberg is one of the newest candidates to enter the party’s primary, he has already poured $200m into television and digital ads to elevate his name identification and poll numbers.
Bloomberg was recently given an extension on filing financial disclosure information until 20 March, weeks after the Super Tuesday cluster of primary contests, by which time the Democratic nominating contest could already be decided.
Tom Steyer has spent more than $120m in advertising to boost his campaign, according to an NPR analysis. Together with Bloomberg, the two billionaires have spent $320m of the $409.8m Democratic candidates in the large – though shrinking – primary field have poured into advertising so far in the race.
Wealthy candidates who lean on their personal fortunes to fuel their presidential campaigns is not a new aspect of campaigning or a result of Citizens United. But the spending by Bloomberg and Steyer plus the absence of limitations on spending for outside groups marks the new reality political operatives face.
The war chests of these two have allowed them to outlast several other candidates, with the most noticeable recent examples being Julián Castro, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, who came into the race with higher political profiles but less money.
Montana’s governor, Steve Bullock, a former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who made opposition to dark money a pillar of his campaign, warned that the Citizens United ruling has hurt campaigning for office and governing. He pointed to a statistic from the Issue One not-for-profit group that said members of Congress have spent more than 1,600,000 hours spending money “instead of doing their jobs”.
I think we can say without any reservation that Citizens United has been a train wreck for representative democracy Steve Bullock
“On the 10th anniversary I think we can say without any reservation that Citizens United has been a train wreck for representative democracy,” Bullock said. “It’s been a train wreck for actual campaigns. It’s been a train wreck for actual governing and for people’s trust in the system.”
Critics of the Citizens United ruling and advocates of increasing transparency in political spending argue that the center of gravity has shifted.
Adam Bozzi, the communications director for the End Citizens United Pac, warned that outside spending by groups that don’t have to disclose their donors will probably only increase.
“I think it’s going to affect this upcoming cycle in the same way that’s affected the last several cycles, just a higher order of magnitude,” Bozzi said, adding that “the amount of money a mega-donor can throw in has paralyzed Congress. And it’s not even – it’s one donor that has the ability to throw $10m into a race.”
He added: “So candidates or members of Congress are afraid to step outside their lane and sign on to a bill or work with someone on the other side of the aisle or even take a position or give a speech because they’re afraid that there will be $10m in a pot to spend against them the next day.”
But Bozzi pointed out that 2018 and 2020 have also been marked by a rising movement against big-dollar fundraising and Super Pacs.
“The good news is there’s a growing movement to stop it and there’s been progress,” Bozzi said.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have run presidential campaigns funded without high-dollar fundraisers or donations from corporate Pacs and a strong distaste for Super Pacs or outside group support.
Mark Brewer, an attorney and former chairman of the Michigan Democratic party, cautioned though that may only last as long as the Democratic primary.
“There’s going to be all these independent groups out there on both sides,” Brewer said. “And the candidates can’t stop it.”