npr--2020-02-07--The XFL Aims To Capitalize On Spring Football With 9-Point Touchdowns, Other Oddities

The XFL Aims To Capitalize On Spring Football With 9-Point Touchdowns , Other Oddities The XFL is set for a reboot this weekend nearly two decades after it folded .
Back in 2001 , World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon promised a new type of football game : faster , more violent tackles , creative new rules , a brash attitude and scantily clad cheerleaders .
`` We welcome you to our brand of football , '' McMahon said in his 2001 opening day speech before he growled , `` Ladies and gentlemen , this is the XFL . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ players sprinted to the ball for possession .
Coaches and players were mic 'd up and on-field conversations were broadcast live on TV .
At halftime , cameras went into the cheerleaders ' locker room .
Players used nicknames on the back of their jerseys instead of last names , spawning personalities like `` He Hate Me . ''
The XFL even ushered in regular use of now-ubiquitous aerial footage from Skycams .
The league partnered with NBC and the first games had meteoric ratings .
But fans left in droves over sloppy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The league folded after just one season .
The second version in 2020 promises less over-the-top entertainment and better football .
XFL officials say they have the resources they need to stick around .
McMahon has reportedly promised a half-billion dollar investment .
He 's banking on capturing football fans ' attention during the six-month NFL off-season .
Eight teams — Dallas , Houston , Los Angeles , New York , St. Louis , Seattle , Tampa Bay , Fla. , and Washington — will kickoff Saturday and Sunday .
The XFL ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had a faux doctor pitching the league as the antidote to `` football withdrawal syndrome . ''
The 10-week season runs through most of the spring and ends with a championship game on April 26 .
Many leagues have attempted to succeed with spring football and so far all have failed .
Here 's more on what the XFL hopes will set it apart from the NFL , and what may , or may not , make it a lasting league .
The XFL promises plenty of wrinkles to make the game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' : Often NFL or college teams with the lead at the end of the game will run the ball to run out the clock .
In the XFL , the clock will mostly stop after every play within the last two minutes of each half to give trailing teams a chance to catch up and win .
• No extra points : The XFL says the extra-point kicks after a touchdown have become a given , so they added some spice with flag football-style rules .
Instead of kicking , teams can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 5 or 2-yard line .
If they get into the end zone , they 'll get 3 , 2 or 1 extra point , respectively .
The rule , paired with the comeback period , means teams have a better chance of overcoming a deficit and could create more games that remain interesting in the fourth quarter .
• Games under three hours : NFL games last on average about three hours and 12 minutes and have a lot of down time , but the XFL is looking to stuff the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It will have a shorter 25-second play clock and the clock will run after incompletions and out-of-bounds plays , instead of stopping as it does in the NFL and NCAA .
The XFL is also limiting each team to two timeouts per half , shortening halftime to 10 minutes and eliminating the ability for coaches to challenge plays ( though officials can review most plays if they choose ) .
• Overtime : Gone is `` first-team-to-score wins '' or games ending in ties .
New rules are similar to soccer-style penalty kicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five rounds where teams will attempt to score from the 5-yard line .
The team with the most points at the end wins .
• Multiple forward passes in one play : A quarterback can throw to another player and as long as that second player is behind the line of scrimmage , he can pass forward to another player .
The rule could give birth to some innovative trick plays .
The XFL says it will also discourage political gestures from players during games , like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthem to protest how police treat people of color .
As to coaches and players , the XFL nabbed some big names , like former Oklahoma Sooners coach Bob Stoops , who will coach the Dallas Renegades , and quarterback Cardale Jones , who won a national championship at Ohio State and will play for the D.C. Defenders .
Other former college and NFL players , and those attempting to make the NFL , will round out the rosters .
It 's unclear who could be a breakout personality in the league , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He Hate Me '' ) in 2001 .
Renegades wide receiver Jeff Badet has made a social-media splash during practice with his helmet visors based on internet memes , including Spongebob .
Why is it so hard to start a new league ?
Several other independent professional football leagues hoping to capitalize on spring football , like the Arena Football League ( 1987-2008 ) , the United Football League ( 2009-2012 ) and the Alliance of American Football ( 2018 ) , have all folded in the past 20 years .
Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ride the NFL 's coattails .
The NFL is the largest , most profitable sports league in the world , says Darin White , executive director of the Samford University Center for Sports Analytics , which measures `` relevance '' of different leagues in the sports world .
White knows a bit about the situation .
Samford is just outside Birmingham , Ala. , where four previous failed football leagues have had a team .
`` It 's like any other business , '' White said .
`` Someone believes there 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a profitable venture .
`` But most ( leagues ) , at the end of the day , do n't have enough capital to survive . ''
He says the XFL will have to take a minor league baseball franchise approach : connect with communities , go all-in on `` crazy '' marketing and make sure fans are engaged .
But fans ' dollars are stretched thin now with so many choices of both live entertainment and streaming at home , White said , that it can be tough to get people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There will be a lot of interest to check out this new shiny cool thing , but the staying power is the key , '' White said .
`` When people go to the game , how is the fan experience ?
Did they have a good time ?
Do they enjoy the product on the field ? ''
Those are key questions as to whether the league can turn football fans into XFL fans .
Most pro and college teams trade on years of tradition or deep roots in a community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he says .
White is withholding judgment until after the XFL 's first season when his sports analytics center can gauge fan growth and engagement .
`` It 'll be fun to sit back and watch , '' White said.
`` Nine leagues have tried it before and all are in the pro-football graveyard . ''
One thing is for sure : `` It 's a far different sports and media world in 2020 than it was in 2001 . ''

The XFL Aims To Capitalize On Spring Football With 9-Point Touchdowns, Other Oddities
Enlarge this image toggle caption Paul Sakuma/AP Paul Sakuma/AP
The XFL is set for a reboot this weekend nearly two decades after it folded.
Back in 2001, World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon promised a new type of football game: faster, more violent tackles, creative new rules, a brash attitude and scantily clad cheerleaders.
"We welcome you to our brand of football," McMahon said in his 2001 opening day speech before he growled, "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the XFL."
Instead of a coin toss, two players sprinted to the ball for possession. Coaches and players were mic'd up and on-field conversations were broadcast live on TV. At halftime, cameras went into the cheerleaders' locker room. Players used nicknames on the back of their jerseys instead of last names, spawning personalities like "He Hate Me." The XFL even ushered in regular use of now-ubiquitous aerial footage from Skycams.
The league partnered with NBC and the first games had meteoric ratings. But fans left in droves over sloppy game play and TV ratings plummeted. The league folded after just one season.
The second version in 2020 promises less over-the-top entertainment and better football. XFL officials say they have the resources they need to stick around. McMahon has reportedly promised a half-billion dollar investment. He's banking on capturing football fans' attention during the six-month NFL off-season.
Eight teams — Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Fla., and Washington — will kickoff Saturday and Sunday.
The XFL ran a teaser commercial during the Super Bowl that had a faux doctor pitching the league as the antidote to "football withdrawal syndrome."
The 10-week season runs through most of the spring and ends with a championship game on April 26. Many leagues have attempted to succeed with spring football and so far all have failed.
Here's more on what the XFL hopes will set it apart from the NFL, and what may, or may not, make it a lasting league.
What's the draw? Unique rules and personalities.
The XFL promises plenty of wrinkles to make the game interesting:
A "comeback period": Often NFL or college teams with the lead at the end of the game will run the ball to run out the clock. In the XFL, the clock will mostly stop after every play within the last two minutes of each half to give trailing teams a chance to catch up and win.
Often NFL or college teams with the lead at the end of the game will run the ball to run out the clock. In the XFL, the clock will mostly stop after every play within the last two minutes of each half to give trailing teams a chance to catch up and win. No extra points: The XFL says the extra-point kicks after a touchdown have become a given, so they added some spice with flag football-style rules. Instead of kicking, teams can choose to run plays from the 10, 5 or 2-yard line. If they get into the end zone, they'll get 3, 2 or 1 extra point, respectively. The rule, paired with the comeback period, means teams have a better chance of overcoming a deficit and could create more games that remain interesting in the fourth quarter.
The XFL says the extra-point kicks after a touchdown have become a given, so they added some spice with flag football-style rules. Instead of kicking, teams can choose to run plays from the 10, 5 or 2-yard line. If they get into the end zone, they'll get 3, 2 or 1 extra point, respectively. The rule, paired with the comeback period, means teams have a better chance of overcoming a deficit and could create more games that remain interesting in the fourth quarter. Games under three hours: NFL games last on average about three hours and 12 minutes and have a lot of down time, but the XFL is looking to stuff the same number of plays into less time. It will have a shorter 25-second play clock and the clock will run after incompletions and out-of-bounds plays, instead of stopping as it does in the NFL and NCAA. The XFL is also limiting each team to two timeouts per half, shortening halftime to 10 minutes and eliminating the ability for coaches to challenge plays (though officials can review most plays if they choose).
NFL games last on average about three hours and 12 minutes and have a lot of down time, but the XFL is looking to stuff the same number of plays into less time. It will have a shorter 25-second play clock and the clock will run after incompletions and out-of-bounds plays, instead of stopping as it does in the NFL and NCAA. The XFL is also limiting each team to two timeouts per half, shortening halftime to 10 minutes and eliminating the ability for coaches to challenge plays (though officials can review most plays if they choose). Overtime: Gone is "first-team-to-score wins" or games ending in ties. New rules are similar to soccer-style penalty kicks or hockey shootouts. Overtime consists of five rounds where teams will attempt to score from the 5-yard line. The team with the most points at the end wins.
Gone is "first-team-to-score wins" or games ending in ties. New rules are similar to soccer-style penalty kicks or hockey shootouts. Overtime consists of five rounds where teams will attempt to score from the 5-yard line. The team with the most points at the end wins. Multiple forward passes in one play: A quarterback can throw to another player and as long as that second player is behind the line of scrimmage, he can pass forward to another player. The rule could give birth to some innovative trick plays.
YouTube
The XFL says it will also discourage political gestures from players during games, like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest how police treat people of color.
As to coaches and players, the XFL nabbed some big names, like former Oklahoma Sooners coach Bob Stoops, who will coach the Dallas Renegades, and quarterback Cardale Jones, who won a national championship at Ohio State and will play for the D.C. Defenders. Other former college and NFL players, and those attempting to make the NFL, will round out the rosters.
It's unclear who could be a breakout personality in the league, similar to Rod Smart (aka "He Hate Me") in 2001. Renegades wide receiver Jeff Badet has made a social-media splash during practice with his helmet visors based on internet memes, including Spongebob.
Why is it so hard to start a new league?
Several other independent professional football leagues hoping to capitalize on spring football, like the Arena Football League (1987-2008), the United Football League (2009-2012) and the Alliance of American Football (2018), have all folded in the past 20 years.
From 2001: NPR's Tom Goldman Talks About The XFL's Launch Xfl Listen · 8:17 8:17
Most of these leagues cropped up as a way to ride the NFL's coattails. The NFL is the largest, most profitable sports league in the world, says Darin White, executive director of the Samford University Center for Sports Analytics, which measures "relevance" of different leagues in the sports world.
White knows a bit about the situation. Samford is just outside Birmingham, Ala., where four previous failed football leagues have had a team.
"It's like any other business," White said. "Someone believes there's enough eyeballs on a sport to make it a profitable venture.
"But most (leagues), at the end of the day, don't have enough capital to survive."
He says the XFL will have to take a minor league baseball franchise approach: connect with communities, go all-in on "crazy" marketing and make sure fans are engaged.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Paul Sakuma/ASSOCIATED PRESS Paul Sakuma/ASSOCIATED PRESS
But fans' dollars are stretched thin now with so many choices of both live entertainment and streaming at home, White said, that it can be tough to get people hooked on a new option.
"There will be a lot of interest to check out this new shiny cool thing, but the staying power is the key," White said. "When people go to the game, how is the fan experience? Did they have a good time? Do they enjoy the product on the field?"
Those are key questions as to whether the league can turn football fans into XFL fans. Most pro and college teams trade on years of tradition or deep roots in a community. The XFL will have to build that, he says.
White is withholding judgment until after the XFL's first season when his sports analytics center can gauge fan growth and engagement.
"It'll be fun to sit back and watch," White said. " Nine leagues have tried it before and all are in the pro-football graveyard."
One thing is for sure: "It's a far different sports and media world in 2020 than it was in 2001."


npr--2020-02-06--Life In Quarantine: What It's Like For The U.S. Evacuees From Wuhan

Life In Quarantine : What It 's Like For The U.S. Evacuees From Wuhan Chunlin Leonhard is grateful to be back in the United States , even though she 's now living under the first federally mandated quarantine in 50 years .
`` The primary feeling is a sense of relief that I 'm back in the States , '' she says .
`` I 'm just tired and glad and grateful . ''
Leonhard , a 55-year-old professor at Loyola University of the New Orleans College of Law , arrived at the Travis Air Force base in California on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evacuation of Americans who were in Wuhan , China , the epicenter of the global coronavirus outbreak .
She 'd been visiting relatives there .
Leonhard 's quarters at the military base where she is quarantined are simple , but comfortable , she says .
They resemble standard hotel rooms .
Her space has a clean bathroom , internet access and a television .
The evacuees can leave their rooms , and go outside for walks within a fenced-in area .
Food is provided three times a day .
`` I do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Health officials are trying to make things easier for the evacuees , she adds .
Ningxi Xu , another evacuee under quarantine , says she can order supplies online and have them delivered .
She 's been working remotely .
But Xu , who is 30 and an investment manager in Jersey City , wishes she could return home to her family .
`` It 's almost like being in prison here , '' she says .
`` It 's just an unfortunate reality . ''
People are worried about getting sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't want to get too close .
Nobody wants to be close to anybody .
And also people get pretty upset if you do n't put on your mask properly . ''
Under this 14-day quarantine , the passengers do n't have to wear masks , although they can if they choose , according to Chris Braden , deputy director for the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
They are asked to keep a distance from other people — about six feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're in their quarters , there are getting symptom and temperature checks twice each day , Braden says .
CDC doctors caring for the quarantined evacuees say they are providing any medical treatment they may need , including mental health counseling .
`` When anyone comes from a stressful situation where there 's intense community-wide transmission of an emerging disease and then they 're whisked away and put on a plane and then arrive at a new destination , obviously it 's very stressful , '' says the CDC 's Dr. Henry Walke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Travis base .
`` So , yes , we are concerned about the mental health of the residents . ''
Still , there 's a sense of gratitude among the passengers , Leonhard says .
They want to concentrate on the positive , and put the experience at the Wuhan airport behind them .
The process of evacuation process took longer than anticipated , Braden says .
A total of 345 passengers returned to the United States Wednesday on two flights .
Some went to Travis Air Force Base while others landed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near San Diego .
Health officials screened the passengers upon arrival , Walke says .
This follows a first flight of evacuees that landed last week , bringing the total number of people repatriated to the United States up to 540 .
But the process to get home was frustrating , according to two passengers .
Xu had been in Wuhan visiting family for the Lunar New Year holiday .
She was n't sure when she would be allowed to return to the United States , where she has been living for 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department and the U.S. embassy , but did n't hear back .
`` Looking back on it over the past three weeks , it was a progression of confusion , then some despair , '' she says .
It was chaotic at the airport in China , Leonhard says .
Medical professionals clad in protective suits examined passengers and took their temperatures .
People were sitting for hours and hours amid the confusion before they were able to board what seemed like a cargo plane with very few windows , Xu adds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ plane , Walke says , cheering as the passengers finally arrived , and screened them for symptoms in the hangar before explaining their quarantine orders .
People have generally been understanding about the confinement , Braden says .
But before the federal quarantine was announced last week , one woman who arrived on an earlier flight from China was `` very adamant about leaving . ''
`` This woman was very frustrated and upset and felt that she had to be home , '' he adds .
She was still insistent after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` But we were able to work through that . ''
Though being in mandatory quarantine is not anyone 's first choice , the government 's decision to handle the evacuees this way made `` perfect sense '' to Leonhard , for the sake of public health .
And Leonhard was glad to know that her confinement has an end date , which she learned when she was handed a court order upon landing in the U.S. `` I know in 14 days , if everything 's okay , it 's going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The chaotic experience in China made her value seeing a transparent process in action , she says .
`` Sitting in China , I just felt totally helpless , '' she adds .
`` I was really just trying to get out because I needed to .
It was stressing me out tremendously . ''

Life In Quarantine: What It's Like For The U.S. Evacuees From Wuhan
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chunlin Leonhard Chunlin Leonhard
Chunlin Leonhard is grateful to be back in the United States, even though she's now living under the first federally mandated quarantine in 50 years. "The primary feeling is a sense of relief that I'm back in the States," she says. "I'm just tired and glad and grateful."
Leonhard, a 55-year-old professor at Loyola University of the New Orleans College of Law, arrived at the Travis Air Force base in California on Wednesday as part of a state department evacuation of Americans who were in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the global coronavirus outbreak. She'd been visiting relatives there.
Leonhard's quarters at the military base where she is quarantined are simple, but comfortable, she says. They resemble standard hotel rooms. Her space has a clean bathroom, internet access and a television.
The evacuees can leave their rooms, and go outside for walks within a fenced-in area. Food is provided three times a day. "I don't feel that cramped," she says. Health officials are trying to make things easier for the evacuees, she adds.
Ningxi Xu, another evacuee under quarantine, says she can order supplies online and have them delivered. She's been working remotely.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ningxi Xu Ningxi Xu
But Xu, who is 30 and an investment manager in Jersey City, wishes she could return home to her family. "It's almost like being in prison here," she says. "It's just an unfortunate reality."
People are worried about getting sick, Leonhard says. "People didn't want to get too close. Nobody wants to be close to anybody. And also people get pretty upset if you don't put on your mask properly."
Under this 14-day quarantine, the passengers don't have to wear masks, although they can if they choose, according to Chris Braden, deputy director for the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are asked to keep a distance from other people — about six feet, he adds.
Now that they're in their quarters, there are getting symptom and temperature checks twice each day, Braden says.
CDC doctors caring for the quarantined evacuees say they are providing any medical treatment they may need, including mental health counseling.
"When anyone comes from a stressful situation where there's intense community-wide transmission of an emerging disease and then they're whisked away and put on a plane and then arrive at a new destination, obviously it's very stressful," says the CDC's Dr. Henry Walke, who's caring for evacuees at the Travis base. "So, yes, we are concerned about the mental health of the residents."
Still, there's a sense of gratitude among the passengers, Leonhard says. They want to concentrate on the positive, and put the experience at the Wuhan airport behind them.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Nicholas Pilch/AP Nicholas Pilch/AP
The process of evacuation process took longer than anticipated, Braden says. A total of 345 passengers returned to the United States Wednesday on two flights. Some went to Travis Air Force Base while others landed at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, near San Diego. Health officials screened the passengers upon arrival, Walke says. This follows a first flight of evacuees that landed last week, bringing the total number of people repatriated to the United States up to 540.
But the process to get home was frustrating, according to two passengers.
Xu had been in Wuhan visiting family for the Lunar New Year holiday. She wasn't sure when she would be allowed to return to the United States, where she has been living for 13 years. She kept calling the State Department and the U.S. embassy, but didn't hear back. "Looking back on it over the past three weeks, it was a progression of confusion, then some despair," she says.
It was chaotic at the airport in China, Leonhard says. Medical professionals clad in protective suits examined passengers and took their temperatures.
People were sitting for hours and hours amid the confusion before they were able to board what seemed like a cargo plane with very few windows, Xu adds.
A team from the CDC met the plane, Walke says, cheering as the passengers finally arrived, and screened them for symptoms in the hangar before explaining their quarantine orders.
People have generally been understanding about the confinement, Braden says. But before the federal quarantine was announced last week, one woman who arrived on an earlier flight from China was "very adamant about leaving."
"This woman was very frustrated and upset and felt that she had to be home," he adds. She was still insistent after a mental health counselor spoke to her. "But we were able to work through that."
Though being in mandatory quarantine is not anyone's first choice, the government's decision to handle the evacuees this way made "perfect sense" to Leonhard, for the sake of public health.
And Leonhard was glad to know that her confinement has an end date, which she learned when she was handed a court order upon landing in the U.S. "I know in 14 days, if everything's okay, it's going to be over," she says.
The chaotic experience in China made her value seeing a transparent process in action, she says. "Sitting in China, I just felt totally helpless," she adds. "I was really just trying to get out because I needed to. It was stressing me out tremendously."
Elena Renken is the Science desk intern.


npr--2020-02-06--Coronavirus Whistleblower Dies From The Disease In China

Coronavirus Whistleblower Dies From The Disease In China A Chinese doctor who was among the first to blow the whistle on the new coronavirus has died from the disease , the hospital treating him said on social media early Friday local time .
Li Wenliang , 34 , an ophthalmologist based in Wuhan , was reprimanded in early January by local police authorities for `` publishing falsehoods '' after he mentioned in a WeChat group seven cases of a virus similar to SARS from a seafood market .
News of Li 's death has triggered millions of reactions on Weibo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most posts mourned him , called him a hero and commented with candle emojis , some with mourning poems .
When Li was in critical condition late Thursday and early Friday local time , millions of people flocked to a livestream operated by local media outside the hospital , the Wall Street Journal reported .
Among the outpouring of grief , some asked for accountability and transparency surrounding his treatment and the larger picture of authorities ' response to the virus .
The topics `` Wuhan government owes Dr. Li Wenliang an apology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech '' soon began to trend on Weibo , before being deleted , CNN reported .
In a now-deleted interview with Beijing Youth Daily in late January , Li said that the report on SARS is not entirely accurate , although he did n't mean to be misleading .
He also did n't mean to spread the information widely .
But he was trying to warn his old classmates , many of whom were practicing clinicians .
He said he was later infected after treating a female patient with `` unknown pneumonia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ week before he died , Li recounted his journey from seeing the coronavirus test result , to being reprimanded by the authorities for disrupting the social order , to being hospitalized .
`` I was hospitalized on the 12th .
At that time , I was still wondering , 'Why is there no announcement of people-to-people transmission , and why are no medical workers getting infected ? '
'' he wrote .
He was diagnosed with coronavirus the next day .
`` The dust is settled now . ''
Li 's death has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the People 's Daily and the Global Times .
Michael Ryan , head of the World Health Organization 's emergencies program said , `` We 're very sad to hear of the loss of Dr. Li Wenliang .
We 're very sorry to hear of the loss of any front line worker who 's attempted to care for patients .
And we ourselves have lost our friends in the front lines .
So we should celebrate his life and mourn his death with his colleagues . ''
Li leaves behind one child and @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Coronavirus Whistleblower Dies From The Disease In China
Enlarge this image toggle caption Barcroft Media/Getty Images Barcroft Media/Getty Images
Updated at 9:20 p.m. ET
A Chinese doctor who was among the first to blow the whistle on the new coronavirus has died from the disease, the hospital treating him said on social media early Friday local time.
Li Wenliang, 34, an ophthalmologist based in Wuhan, was reprimanded in early January by local police authorities for "publishing falsehoods" after he mentioned in a WeChat group seven cases of a virus similar to SARS from a seafood market.
Asia Chinese Doctor Who Sounded Early Warning About Coronavirus Dies After Contracting It Chinese Doctor Who Sounded Early Warning About Coronavirus Dies After Contracting It Listen · 4:02 4:02
News of Li's death has triggered millions of reactions on Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter. Most posts mourned him, called him a hero and commented with candle emojis, some with mourning poems. When Li was in critical condition late Thursday and early Friday local time, millions of people flocked to a livestream operated by local media outside the hospital, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Among the outpouring of grief, some asked for accountability and transparency surrounding his treatment and the larger picture of authorities' response to the virus.
The topics "Wuhan government owes Dr. Li Wenliang an apology" and "We want freedom of speech" soon began to trend on Weibo, before being deleted, CNN reported.
In a now-deleted interview with Beijing Youth Daily in late January, Li said that the report on SARS is not entirely accurate, although he didn't mean to be misleading. He also didn't mean to spread the information widely.
But he was trying to warn his old classmates, many of whom were practicing clinicians. He said he was later infected after treating a female patient with "unknown pneumonia."
On his personal Weibo account one week before he died, Li recounted his journey from seeing the coronavirus test result, to being reprimanded by the authorities for disrupting the social order, to being hospitalized.
"I was hospitalized on the 12th. At that time, I was still wondering, 'Why is there no announcement of people-to-people transmission, and why are no medical workers getting infected?'" he wrote.
He was diagnosed with coronavirus the next day. "The dust is settled now."
Li's death has prompted condolences from state media, including the People's Daily and the Global Times.
Michael Ryan, head of the World Health Organization's emergencies program said, "We're very sad to hear of the loss of Dr. Li Wenliang. We're very sorry to hear of the loss of any front line worker who's attempted to care for patients. And we ourselves have lost our friends in the front lines. So we should celebrate his life and mourn his death with his colleagues."
Li leaves behind one child and his wife, who is pregnant.


npr--2020-02-06--U.S. Charges Suspect In El Paso Walmart Shootings With Hate Crimes

U.S. Charges Suspect In El Paso Walmart Shootings With Hate Crimes Federal prosecutors have charged Patrick Wood Crusius with hate crimes related to the killing of 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso , Texas , last August .
Crusius allegedly told police he had driven to the store intending to kill `` Mexicans . ''
A federal grand jury returned a 90-count indictment that also included firearm charges in connection with the shootings , which the Department of Justice has described as an act of domestic terrorism .
`` The attack deeply scarred this community , '' U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference in El Paso on Thursday .
Bringing the hate crime charges , he said , `` vindicates the federal interest '' in stopping crimes that target people based on real or perceived national origin .
On Aug. 3 , the 21-year-old white suspect allegedly opened fire using an AK-47 at the Cielo Vista Walmart , in an attack that also wounded 22 people .
Crusius had already been indicted on a capital murder charge at the state level .
Crusius pleaded not guilty to the killings during a court appearance last October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confessed to the crime .
Bash said the law provides for the death penalty for some of the charges , and Attorney General William Barr would make the final decision on whether the government would seek a death sentence or life in prison if Crusius is convicted .
An arrest warrant affidavit said that on the day of the shooting , Crusius stated , `` I 'm the shooter , '' as he surrendered to law enforcement .
The affidavit added that Crusius later told authorities that he drove more than 600 miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to the Walmart near the U.S. border with Mexico .
`` The store is a popular destination among Mexican tourists who cross into the U.S. from the neighboring city of Juarez , '' as NPR 's Vanessa Romo has reported .
Shortly before the shooting started , Crusius is believed to have posted a `` racist , anti-immigrant screed to a website popular within white supremacy circles , '' Romo reported .
`` In it , the author ranted against interracial mixing and the 'Hispanic invasion of Texas . '
`` '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the online rant stated , as KERA reported .
`` I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion . ''
A lawyer for Crusius , David Lane , confirmed to NPR that he was aware his client faces federal charges .
He did not offer additional comment .
KERA 's Mallory Falk and NPR 's Bill Chappell contributed to this report .

U.S. Charges Suspect In El Paso Walmart Shootings With Hate Crimes
Enlarge this image toggle caption Briana Sanchez/AP Briana Sanchez/AP
Federal prosecutors have charged Patrick Wood Crusius with hate crimes related to the killing of 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, last August. Crusius allegedly told police he had driven to the store intending to kill "Mexicans."
A federal grand jury returned a 90-count indictment that also included firearm charges in connection with the shootings, which the Department of Justice has described as an act of domestic terrorism.
"The attack deeply scarred this community," U.S. Attorney John Bash said in a news conference in El Paso on Thursday. Bringing the hate crime charges, he said, "vindicates the federal interest" in stopping crimes that target people based on real or perceived national origin.
On Aug. 3, the 21-year-old white suspect allegedly opened fire using an AK-47 at the Cielo Vista Walmart, in an attack that also wounded 22 people.
Crusius had already been indicted on a capital murder charge at the state level. Crusius pleaded not guilty to the killings during a court appearance last October, despite police documents that state he confessed to the crime.
Bash said the law provides for the death penalty for some of the charges, and Attorney General William Barr would make the final decision on whether the government would seek a death sentence or life in prison if Crusius is convicted.
An arrest warrant affidavit said that on the day of the shooting, Crusius stated, "I'm the shooter," as he surrendered to law enforcement. The affidavit added that Crusius later told authorities that he drove more than 600 miles from the Dallas suburb Allen, Texas, to the Walmart near the U.S. border with Mexico.
"The store is a popular destination among Mexican tourists who cross into the U.S. from the neighboring city of Juarez," as NPR's Vanessa Romo has reported.
Shortly before the shooting started, Crusius is believed to have posted a "racist, anti-immigrant screed to a website popular within white supremacy circles," Romo reported. "In it, the author ranted against interracial mixing and the 'Hispanic invasion of Texas.' "
"They are the instigators, not me," the online rant stated, as KERA reported. "I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."
A lawyer for Crusius, David Lane, confirmed to NPR that he was aware his client faces federal charges. He did not offer additional comment.
KERA's Mallory Falk and NPR's Bill Chappell contributed to this report.


npr--2020-02-06--Transcript: Trump Impeachment Process Was 'Absolutely Worth It,' Schiff Says

Transcript : Trump Impeachment Process Was 'Absolutely Worth It , ' Schiff Says Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , says that the months-long impeachment inquiry and Senate trial was `` absolutely worth it , '' even though the Senate ultimately voted to acquit President Trump of the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges against him .
Trump on Thursday was defiant , saying he had done nothing wrong and that the Democrats ' investigation had been a hoax .
Schiff was among the House Democrats who led the inquiry that resulted in Trump 's impeachment in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead impeachment manager in the Senate trial .
Read a transcript of his full interview with Morning Edition 's Steve Inskeep below .
Inskeep : So we watched the vote yesterday and we could sometimes see your face .
And one of my colleagues was saying , he seems to be staring intently as the senators are voting .
What were you thinking as the senators cast their votes ?
Schiff : I was thinking of just how unusual it is to be in a legislative body and what you 're hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` not guilty . ''
That 's just not the kind of thing that is pronounced on a House floor or Senate floor — except for during impeachments .
And here we were present for the third in history and first-ever where a Republican , or a member , frankly , of either party , would vote to convict a president of their own party .
So it was a pretty historic and weighty moment .
And of course , we did n't know fully what to expect .
We thought we knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be wrong .
Because of Mitt Romney .
That 's what you 're saying was wrong .
Yes .
And , you know , it was n't entirely clear how all the Democratic senators were going to vote either .
So there were some unknowns going into the proceeding .
But , you know , I think we felt throughout , and certainly on the day of the verdict , just the sheer weight of history upon us .
Everybody watching this presumed that the verdict would be what the verdict was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and go through the prosecution .
Did you keep in your mind until the very end the possibility that somehow it could turn out differently ?
Well , you know , I guess the way I thought of it was much like I mentioned on Monday .
And that is , if we could change a single mind , if we could encourage a single member to vote their conscience and their oath and put their country over their party , that one person could change history .
And I think Mitt Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change history .
And — How does one vote change history , given that it 's still an acquittal ?
Well , because I think what he did will give courage to others that they , too , can stand up .
They can speak out .
They can take on even their own president , their own party .
They can do the right thing .
That will lead to others to do the same .
And it has a cascading impact .
But I 'll also say that in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very difficult votes , votes that may require us to contradict our party , we will think back to the courage that he displayed and it will inspire us .
So I really do think what Mitt Romney did was extraordinary .
And while I would have hoped that there would have been other senators to do the same thing , it makes it all the more extraordinary that he did it alone .
And I think he deserves all of our respect .
Granting that you got that one vote — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you got it — this was a months-long process , an extraordinarily difficult and divisive process .
Was this process worth it ?
It was absolutely worth it .
And we felt very strongly and I think history will bear us out on this , that we needed to place a constraint on this president who was acting unethically , who was sacrificing our national security , who was jeopardizing the integrity of our elections .
And whatever the result was going to be in the Senate , we could n't sit still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the case .
Now , we ca n't dictate what senators do in fulfillment or lack of fulfillment of their oath , but we can make sure that we live up to ours .
And for me , the fact that the day after Bob Mueller testified , the day after the president felt that he had escaped accountability for his first misconduct , that he was back at it again , said that this is a president who feels completely unconstrained .
And that regardless of what the result may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclude that he had abused the power of his office , he needed to be impeached .
He 's still in office .
He 's claiming total vindication .
His personal lawyer has told us he should go right back to seeking investigations of Joe Biden in Ukraine and , in fact , elsewhere .
How , if at all , is he constrained now ?
Well , and you know , indeed , this is what we warned , that he would not stop trying to cheat , that his minions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persist .
That 's a question , you know , best asked for the senators who acknowledge the president 's guilt , who have to acknowledge now that he 's not repentant , much as some of them may have hoped .
There was no reason for that hope .
At the same time , though , I think the fact that this president has been impeached in the House of Representatives , has that stain upon his record and will , for all of time , will , if not deter him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same kind of misconduct .
And I do think it poses some constraint on the president , even though it 's imperfect .
Had we done nothing , I think the president would have felt absolutely boundless .
Those around him know the stigma that they , too , now will share with him .
And I hope that that will have some impact on deterring him , but we will have to remain deeply vigilant .
Is there any value in the statements of Republican Sens .
Lamar Alexander , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted to acquit but indicated that they thought the president 's actions were wrong ?
You know , there 's some value to it .
It 's an acknowledgment , I think , of the obvious .
But even that is something in this environment , when you have the president and those around him denying the truth and trying to suggest they 're entitled their own alternate reality .
So , yes , it 's salutary that that members , the Senate will recognize the inescapable truth .
At the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerously unsatisfactory for those same senators to say the House proved he was guilty , but we 're not ready to convict him .
We 'll let the voters decide — when we know he 's trying to cheat in that election .
We 'll let the voters decide — while at the same time we will deprive the voters of the full information that they would need to make an informed decision .
Because we wo n't have people like John Bolton testify , we will not enforce congressional subpoenas , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documentary evidence , we will not give the American people the full record to evaluate when they go to the polls .
So I do n't think that 's much of an answer .
And I think equally unsatisfactory to say , as one senator did , that , well , there ca n't be a fair trial in the Senate , so therefore , I 'm not going to support witnesses .
Senators are not passive participants here .
They 're not , you know , in the backseat of the car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
They had the sole power to decide whether we heard witnesses or not .
They exercised that power not to hear witnesses .
And no , they will have to answer for that with the voters and I think with history .
Have you had moments of wondering whether a different strategy might have produced a different result ?
Investigating longer , spending some time in the courts to see if you would get some of your witnesses before the House , preemptively answering some of the complaints that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own process ?
I think those complaints are so clearly thin and unavailing that no , it does n't cause me to second guess our strategy at all .
Had we decided to pursue John Bolton in court , for example , we 'd be in the same place we are right now with Don McGahn , which is , nine months from now , we would still be litigating the matter with no end in sight .
We would have had an election in which the president was actively trying to cheat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We would still be fighting over documents .
We would go up to the Supreme Court , and the Supreme Court would decide , as lower courts have , there is no absolute immunity .
And these witnesses would come in before us and they would refuse to answer questions , not on the basis of absolute immunity anymore , but by claiming a bogus executive privilege , which we would then have to go all the way back up to the Supreme Court to litigate .
This is what they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president resigned .
Well , in Watergate , they were able to get a quick decision from the court , which we were not able to get here .
And in Watergate , you had Republicans more willing to stand up to a president of their own party .
In Watergate , you would have never had lawyers for the president argue , as they did in this case on the Senate floor , that if the president believes that his reelection is in the public interest , he can engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or stratagem he wants and it is constitutionally permissible .
No self-respecting lawyer for the president would have made that argument in the Senate .
But we are where we are .
The times are not the same , and I think they 're much more dangerous because at the moment , at least one of the political parties is willing to tolerate a level of dishonesty , immorality and downright criminality in the Oval Office as long as it 's a president of their party .
Well , we 're gon na @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye on what this president does , because he shows no signs of repentance and no signs of letting up on his efforts to seek foreign intervention in the election .
If he 's capable of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars from an ally at war to coerce or extort that ally into helping his reelection campaign , he 's capable of anything .
And so the Congress is going to have to be vigilant and protect our institutions as long as they 're under threat .
Will you continue investigating these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have n't made a decision about next steps in terms of an investigation .
We did after the senators voted not to hear from witnesses approach John Bolton through his counsel .
We asked that he submit an affidavit under oath .
That is something we thought we could timely accomplish before the senators had to make a decision .
And Bolton refused .
Now , why — Did he say , `` I ca n't do it right now , it 's too quick , '' or did he say , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I do n't know whether they gave much of an explanation , but they just said they would n't do it .
And I think , you know , Mr. Bolton will have a lot of explaining to do about why he could put this in a book and feels it 's not classified — but he could not submit it under oath in an affidavit during the Senate trial .
Well , let 's talk about that for a minute .
Here 's a key witness , former national security adviser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , said in a public statement he would talk to the Senate , the Senate did n't want to hear his testimony by majority vote .
You say he 's now declined to talk to you again , but he 's indicated that he has information .
Do you have the power to go get him ?
He 's declined to submit an affidavit , at least he did during the trial .
And here 's another important point .
You asked , well , could we have done this differently and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two years to hear from Bolton and other witnesses ?
What we saw in the Senate is for tragically too many of the Republican senators , it did n't matter how strong the evidence was .
They said we proved the case .
And yes , we could have proved it even more thoroughly if we took another two years to do it .
But the reality is , if they recognize we proved the case , what would change if we proved it even more ?
So , I think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it , with good reason , and I think that has now been validated by what the senators have said .
In terms of Mr. Bolton , again , we wanted to wait until the trial was over before we made any decisions about next steps .
No decisions at this point have been made .
Do you have the power to send the sergeant at arms , or whoever it would be , to go find him out in Washington , D.C. , and bring him back ?
We have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1930s of inherent contempt , where you can essentially have a trial on the House floor and hold somebody in contempt that we used to be able to imprison them in a jail in the capital .
One of the things that we have been exploring for some time is whether to resurrect that power and , rather than rebuild the jail , impose daily fines until we get compliance .
But even there , and even if we had a jail , it 's not necessarily the cure-all that it may appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or you were to find someone , they would file a habeas corpus petition in court , you 're right back in court again , the court would likely stay any imprisonment until it 's litigated .
If you try to impose fines , the Congress does n't have the ability to garnish someone 's wages .
So you 'd have to go to court to enforce the fines .
At the end of the day , you still end up in the same place , which is in court .
And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , two problems .
One , for those senators that voted , notwithstanding the most universal obstruction we 've ever seen for a president not to convict on that article , they essentially voted away their oversight power .
The second problem is , though , that the courts are not a sufficiently swift means of enforcement , of congressional process .
And on that , we will be introducing legislation to provide for an expedited court process in the future for the enforcement of congressional subpoenas .
That 's not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this president .
But it is one of the post-Watergate , our own Watergate reforms that we are contemplating .
Two officials , I could name many , but two officials still in the administration that you wanted to hear from — Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Pompeo — do you still want to hear from them ?
I would still like to hear from them .
But we have to make the decision about next steps in consultation with our caucus and our leadership .
What do you weigh there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy there or into something else ?
Is that the question that is at issue ?
Well , I think , you know , what we 'll need to weigh is the need to validate Congress ' oversight authority , the need to make sure the American people understand the full length and breadth of the president 's misconduct , as well as others in the administration that were part of the misconduct .
And at the same time , the imperative of keeping our legislative agenda first and foremost and striking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our first of these conversations , you said that an argument for impeachment was also an argument against it — an argument for it being that a president who is not pursued in this way would feel free to go on acting as he was , and future presidents would as well .
The argument against it being that if you impeach and fail to remove , you will still send that same signal that this president and future presidents are free to do as they will .
Is that the presumption now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be able to ignore congressional oversight , as you see it , and act as they want overseas as they see it , as you see it , regardless of congressional efforts to stop them ?
Well , that is a danger by what the senators did in recognizing the president 's guilt , but nonetheless , voting to acquit him because he was the president of their party .
Is it the new default position ?
The president , from your perspective , got away with it .
We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people take away from this chapter of history , that rather it is that a president that flouts Congress will be impeached , whether they 're convicted or not , their name will be stigmatized for all of history .
And more than that , we have to , I think , recognize the salutary impact of this trial , which is , the American people got a much better understanding of the misconduct of the chief executive of the country , the plot was ultimately thwarted .
Now that plotting continues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had we not taken this to trial , I have no doubt that Ukraine would have been forced to capitulate and conduct or announce these political investigations .
So we were able to stop the plot .
I hope permanently , but certainly for a period of time .
We were able to inform the country , which moved from a position where a strong majority Americans did not support even doing the investigation to the point where a narrow majority not only supported investigation but supports his conviction or removal from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change for three months .
And I think we always viewed that we had two juries .
We had a jury of senators , which was going to be a very difficult jury , but we had the jury of the American people , which was ultimately the more important jury .
Do you want people to be thinking about this process when they vote in November ?
I think that they should bear in mind the president 's serious misconduct and , perhaps even more importantly , his fundamental lack of character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want someone committed to telling the truth .
I think they should want someone who knows the difference between right and wrong and has a sense of decency , and these are qualities all lacking in the president of the United States .
Do you have any information that the president has solicited any other foreign interference anywhere in the world since this Ukraine affair seemed to have come to a close last fall ?
Well , I mean , he certainly and very openly solicited China to interfere .
And , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , surely he was joking — He made a statement saying China should investigate Joe Biden , right ?
Yes .
The president , I think , has made it abundantly clear that he is not joking , that he would like China to do investigation of the Bidens , that he still wants Ukraine to do investigation the Bidens .
Now , whether he has communicated privately to other countries .
I do n't know .
What is said at the private meetings between the president and Vladimir Putin , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have seen from displays like we saw in Helsinki , where he took the Kremlin dictator 's views over his own intelligence agency 's , this president is capable of anything .
And if he is animated by the same philosophy expressed by Mr. Dershowitz — that if it 's in his reelection interest is therefore the national interest and he can do no wrong — then we are deeply at risk .
Just before you and I sat down , we learned that the Senate Intelligence Committee has put out findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inadequate efforts , as they said , to counter Russian interference in the election .
Richard Burr , the Republican chairman , described paralysis of analysis , thinking really hard about the options and not really taking any of them .
Do you agree that that is how the Obama administration handled interference last time ?
I have been , really since that whole chapter , been critical of the Obama administration 's handling of that .
At the time , Sen. Feinstein and I urged , as we were watching in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfering , we urged the administration to go public , to attribute the hacking and interference to the Russians .
There was reluctance by the Obama administration to do so .
It was a concern on their part that making an attribution in that way would be perceived as their , the Obama administration 's , trying to put their hand on the scale in favor of the Clinton campaign as opposed the Trump campaign .
But my feeling and Sen. Feinstein 's was that the American people not only deserved to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make informed judgment .
You wish the president had said that more loudly ?
They put out a statement but he should have said it out loud ?
He should have said that earlier , more loudly .
Now , ultimately , they did make attribution , but it was from two agency heads in a written statement that came out on the same day as the Access Hollywood tapes .
And so it was obscured .
And , you know , some of my colleagues in the administration at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , it was terrible timing .
To me , that 's not an adequate answer , because if it did n't get the attention it deserved — and it did n't — then there was nothing stopping others from going out and speaking and making the point much more emphatically .
Mark Warner , the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , makes a very relevant point to now .
He says the Obama administration was right to fear that if they made a warning of Russian interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan meddling in the election by President Obama .
He then says that fear is still present today .
It would be difficult now to warn against foreign interference without being seen as making a partisan point .
Well , that is a risk .
And we included in the Intelligence Authorization Act a requirement that the director of national intelligence make a public acknowledgment if there is foreign interference that the intelligence community discovers prior to election .
We wanted to make that a requirement so that it would n't be discretionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second guessing about when such a statement is made and how it is made .
But we ca n't shrink from that , notwithstanding that one side or the other can claim some poor motive .
The American people need to know if someone is trying to monkey with our election .
And so I thought then , I think now , that regardless of how the chips may fall , if the intelligence community determines that a foreign power is trying to intervene , they need to speak publicly about it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are trying to influence the U.S. election now ?
It is still predominantly the Russians .
They are the gravest threat of election interference .
And it really has n't stopped since 2016 .
They will be better able to hide their hand in 2020 .
They have new tools that they can use , including deepfake technology that allows the production and dissemination of very realistic audio or video of speeches or photos or audio recordings that are completely forged — events that did n't take place , speeches that were n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but can do so in a really convincing way .
Or , as we saw in the cheap fake released of Nancy Pelosi , where one of her speeches was slowed down and the pitch was raised , so it looked like she was impaired , they can play into narratives that they want to advance .
You 're calling that a cheap fake because that was not the most sophisticated thing that could have been done ?
Something far worse could have been done or harder to detect ?
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
And yet it got millions and millions of views and it was pushed out by the president and his allies even after they knew that it was a forgery .
And , you know , this is a profound risk .
And the Russians are active now in a manner that is similar to the way they were in 2016 ?
Yes .
Yes , I mean , there 's certainly , you know , the two main vectors of Russian interference in 2016 were their massive social media campaign on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dumping operation , which also helped Trump and targeted Hillary Clinton .
Now , in this cycle , they 're certainly still active in social media .
And if the public reports are correct , they 're also active in a hacking operation .
They apparently targeted Burisma [ Holdings ] and this time they could very well do something that I was deeply concerned about in 2016 , which is , in 2016 , they hacked the DNC and the DCCC , the Democratic headquarters , and they released stolen but largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't have to be authentic .
They could hack Burisma .
They could release real Burisma documents , but they could also release forgeries about Hunter Biden or anyone else .
And it would be almost impossible to disprove if they were dumped in the last few weeks of an election .
And so the potential for mischief is even greater .
Does any of this keep you up at night , Mr. Chairman ?
Yes , it does .
The idea that we could have another close election with , once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , rather than rejects it , welcomes it , and it lead to a disputed result would be catastrophic for the country .
And so it concerns me a great deal .
And I think the best that we can do is to be vigilant , to try to develop a bipartisan consensus , which we lacked in the last election , that we will all reject foreign interference of any kind .
It will be a liability rather than an asset for whoever it 's intended to help .
We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all do our civic duty and we will turn out in droves on Election Day .
Mr. Chairman , thanks very much for your time .

Transcript: Trump Impeachment Process Was 'Absolutely Worth It,' Schiff Says
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., says that the months-long impeachment inquiry and Senate trial was "absolutely worth it," even though the Senate ultimately voted to acquit President Trump of the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges against him.
Trump on Thursday was defiant, saying he had done nothing wrong and that the Democrats' investigation had been a hoax.
Schiff was among the House Democrats who led the inquiry that resulted in Trump's impeachment in the House in December. He also acted as the lead impeachment manager in the Senate trial.
Read a transcript of his full interview with Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep below.
Inskeep: So we watched the vote yesterday and we could sometimes see your face. And one of my colleagues was saying, he seems to be staring intently as the senators are voting. What were you thinking as the senators cast their votes?
Schiff: I was thinking of just how unusual it is to be in a legislative body and what you're hearing from senators is "guilty" or "not guilty." That's just not the kind of thing that is pronounced on a House floor or Senate floor — except for during impeachments. And here we were present for the third in history and first-ever where a Republican, or a member, frankly, of either party, would vote to convict a president of their own party. So it was a pretty historic and weighty moment. And of course, we didn't know fully what to expect. We thought we knew, but we'd turned out to be wrong.
Because of Mitt Romney. That's what you're saying was wrong.
Yes. And, you know, it wasn't entirely clear how all the Democratic senators were going to vote either. So there were some unknowns going into the proceeding. But, you know, I think we felt throughout, and certainly on the day of the verdict, just the sheer weight of history upon us.
Everybody watching this presumed that the verdict would be what the verdict was. But you had to go through this and go through the prosecution. Did you keep in your mind until the very end the possibility that somehow it could turn out differently?
Well, you know, I guess the way I thought of it was much like I mentioned on Monday. And that is, if we could change a single mind, if we could encourage a single member to vote their conscience and their oath and put their country over their party, that one person could change history. And I think Mitt Romney really did. I think he will change history. And —
How does one vote change history, given that it's still an acquittal?
Well, because I think what he did will give courage to others that they, too, can stand up. They can speak out. They can take on even their own president, their own party. They can do the right thing. That will lead to others to do the same. And it has a cascading impact.
But I'll also say that in the future, when I or my colleagues face very difficult votes, votes that may require us to contradict our party, we will think back to the courage that he displayed and it will inspire us. So I really do think what Mitt Romney did was extraordinary. And while I would have hoped that there would have been other senators to do the same thing, it makes it all the more extraordinary that he did it alone. And I think he deserves all of our respect.
Granting that you got that one vote — that perhaps you could not realistically expect and you got it — this was a months-long process, an extraordinarily difficult and divisive process. Was this process worth it?
It was absolutely worth it. And we felt very strongly and I think history will bear us out on this, that we needed to place a constraint on this president who was acting unethically, who was sacrificing our national security, who was jeopardizing the integrity of our elections. And whatever the result was going to be in the Senate, we couldn't sit still. We had a constitutional obligation to make the case.
Now, we can't dictate what senators do in fulfillment or lack of fulfillment of their oath, but we can make sure that we live up to ours. And for me, the fact that the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after the president felt that he had escaped accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back at it again, said that this is a president who feels completely unconstrained. And that regardless of what the result may be, if the investigation led us to conclude that he had abused the power of his office, he needed to be impeached.
He's still in office. He's claiming total vindication. His personal lawyer has told us he should go right back to seeking investigations of Joe Biden in Ukraine and, in fact, elsewhere. How, if at all, is he constrained now?
Well, and you know, indeed, this is what we warned, that he would not stop trying to cheat, that his minions, like Rudy Giuliani, would continue to persist. That's a question, you know, best asked for the senators who acknowledge the president's guilt, who have to acknowledge now that he's not repentant, much as some of them may have hoped. There was no reason for that hope.
At the same time, though, I think the fact that this president has been impeached in the House of Representatives, has that stain upon his record and will, for all of time, will, if not deter him, it will deter others from engaging in the same kind of misconduct.
And I do think it poses some constraint on the president, even though it's imperfect. Had we done nothing, I think the president would have felt absolutely boundless. Those around him know the stigma that they, too, now will share with him. And I hope that that will have some impact on deterring him, but we will have to remain deeply vigilant.
Is there any value in the statements of Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, a few others who voted to acquit but indicated that they thought the president's actions were wrong?
You know, there's some value to it. It's an acknowledgment, I think, of the obvious. But even that is something in this environment, when you have the president and those around him denying the truth and trying to suggest they're entitled their own alternate reality.
So, yes, it's salutary that that members, the Senate will recognize the inescapable truth. At the same time, it's, I think, dangerously unsatisfactory for those same senators to say the House proved he was guilty, but we're not ready to convict him. We'll let the voters decide — when we know he's trying to cheat in that election. We'll let the voters decide — while at the same time we will deprive the voters of the full information that they would need to make an informed decision. Because we won't have people like John Bolton testify, we will not enforce congressional subpoenas, we will not share with the public the documentary evidence, we will not give the American people the full record to evaluate when they go to the polls.
So I don't think that's much of an answer. And I think equally unsatisfactory to say, as one senator did, that, well, there can't be a fair trial in the Senate, so therefore, I'm not going to support witnesses.
Senators are not passive participants here. They're not, you know, in the backseat of the car. They were controlling the trial in the Senate. They had the sole power to decide whether we heard witnesses or not. They exercised that power not to hear witnesses. And no, they will have to answer for that with the voters and I think with history.
Have you had moments of wondering whether a different strategy might have produced a different result? Investigating longer, spending some time in the courts to see if you would get some of your witnesses before the House, preemptively answering some of the complaints that some of the senators later made about your own process?
I think those complaints are so clearly thin and unavailing that no, it doesn't cause me to second guess our strategy at all. Had we decided to pursue John Bolton in court, for example, we'd be in the same place we are right now with Don McGahn, which is, nine months from now, we would still be litigating the matter with no end in sight. We would have had an election in which the president was actively trying to cheat.
Other witnesses would take even longer. We would still be fighting over documents. We would go up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would decide, as lower courts have, there is no absolute immunity. And these witnesses would come in before us and they would refuse to answer questions, not on the basis of absolute immunity anymore, but by claiming a bogus executive privilege, which we would then have to go all the way back up to the Supreme Court to litigate.
This is what they did in Watergate, though, and ultimately the president resigned.
Well, in Watergate, they were able to get a quick decision from the court, which we were not able to get here. And in Watergate, you had Republicans more willing to stand up to a president of their own party.
In Watergate, you would have never had lawyers for the president argue, as they did in this case on the Senate floor, that if the president believes that his reelection is in the public interest, he can engage in any corrupt quid pro quo or bargain or stratagem he wants and it is constitutionally permissible.
No self-respecting lawyer for the president would have made that argument in the Senate. But we are where we are. The times are not the same, and I think they're much more dangerous because at the moment, at least one of the political parties is willing to tolerate a level of dishonesty, immorality and downright criminality in the Oval Office as long as it's a president of their party.
So what's your plan B?
Well, we're gonna have to continue to keep a vigilant eye on what this president does, because he shows no signs of repentance and no signs of letting up on his efforts to seek foreign intervention in the election. If he's capable of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars from an ally at war to coerce or extort that ally into helping his reelection campaign, he's capable of anything. And so the Congress is going to have to be vigilant and protect our institutions as long as they're under threat.
Will you continue investigating these very same matters in Ukraine?
We haven't made a decision about next steps in terms of an investigation. We did after the senators voted not to hear from witnesses approach John Bolton through his counsel. We asked that he submit an affidavit under oath. That is something we thought we could timely accomplish before the senators had to make a decision. And Bolton refused. Now, why —
Did he say, "I can't do it right now, it's too quick," or did he say, "I will never talk to you"?
I don't know whether they gave much of an explanation, but they just said they wouldn't do it. And I think, you know, Mr. Bolton will have a lot of explaining to do about why he could put this in a book and feels it's not classified — but he could not submit it under oath in an affidavit during the Senate trial.
Well, let's talk about that for a minute. Here's a key witness, former national security adviser, who didn't talk to the House, said in a public statement he would talk to the Senate, the Senate didn't want to hear his testimony by majority vote. You say he's now declined to talk to you again, but he's indicated that he has information. Do you have the power to go get him?
He's declined to submit an affidavit, at least he did during the trial. And here's another important point. You asked, well, could we have done this differently and what if we'd taken another year or two years to hear from Bolton and other witnesses?
What we saw in the Senate is for tragically too many of the Republican senators, it didn't matter how strong the evidence was. They said we proved the case. And yes, we could have proved it even more thoroughly if we took another two years to do it. But the reality is, if they recognize we proved the case, what would change if we proved it even more?
So, I think we made the decision to move when we did it, with good reason, and I think that has now been validated by what the senators have said. In terms of Mr. Bolton, again, we wanted to wait until the trial was over before we made any decisions about next steps. No decisions at this point have been made.
Do you have the power to send the sergeant at arms, or whoever it would be, to go find him out in Washington, D.C., and bring him back?
We have a power we haven't used since the 1930s of inherent contempt, where you can essentially have a trial on the House floor and hold somebody in contempt that we used to be able to imprison them in a jail in the capital.
One of the things that we have been exploring for some time is whether to resurrect that power and, rather than rebuild the jail, impose daily fines until we get compliance. But even there, and even if we had a jail, it's not necessarily the cure-all that it may appear because if you were to arrest somebody or you were to find someone, they would file a habeas corpus petition in court, you're right back in court again, the court would likely stay any imprisonment until it's litigated.
If you try to impose fines, the Congress doesn't have the ability to garnish someone's wages. So you'd have to go to court to enforce the fines. At the end of the day, you still end up in the same place, which is in court. And this, I think, points to, you know, two problems.
One, for those senators that voted, notwithstanding the most universal obstruction we've ever seen for a president not to convict on that article, they essentially voted away their oversight power.
The second problem is, though, that the courts are not a sufficiently swift means of enforcement, of congressional process. And on that, we will be introducing legislation to provide for an expedited court process in the future for the enforcement of congressional subpoenas. That's not something I expect we can get done with this president. But it is one of the post-Watergate, our own Watergate reforms that we are contemplating.
Two officials, I could name many, but two officials still in the administration that you wanted to hear from — Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Pompeo — do you still want to hear from them?
I would still like to hear from them. But we have to make the decision about next steps in consultation with our caucus and our leadership.
What do you weigh there, whether you want to put your energy there or into something else? Is that the question that is at issue?
Well, I think, you know, what we'll need to weigh is the need to validate Congress' oversight authority, the need to make sure the American people understand the full length and breadth of the president's misconduct, as well as others in the administration that were part of the misconduct. And at the same time, the imperative of keeping our legislative agenda first and foremost and striking the right balance between the two.
In our first of these conversations, you said that an argument for impeachment was also an argument against it — an argument for it being that a president who is not pursued in this way would feel free to go on acting as he was, and future presidents would as well. The argument against it being that if you impeach and fail to remove, you will still send that same signal that this president and future presidents are free to do as they will.
Is that the presumption now, that this president and future presidents will be able to ignore congressional oversight, as you see it, and act as they want overseas as they see it, as you see it, regardless of congressional efforts to stop them?
Well, that is a danger by what the senators did in recognizing the president's guilt, but nonetheless, voting to acquit him because he was the president of their party.
Is it the new default position? The president, from your perspective, got away with it.
We have to make sure that that is not what people take away from this chapter of history, that rather it is that a president that flouts Congress will be impeached, whether they're convicted or not, their name will be stigmatized for all of history. And more than that, we have to, I think, recognize the salutary impact of this trial, which is, the American people got a much better understanding of the misconduct of the chief executive of the country, the plot was ultimately thwarted. Now that plotting continues.
But had we not done our investigation, had we not taken this to trial, I have no doubt that Ukraine would have been forced to capitulate and conduct or announce these political investigations. So we were able to stop the plot. I hope permanently, but certainly for a period of time. We were able to inform the country, which moved from a position where a strong majority Americans did not support even doing the investigation to the point where a narrow majority not only supported investigation but supports his conviction or removal from office.
That's a pretty dramatic change for three months. And I think we always viewed that we had two juries. We had a jury of senators, which was going to be a very difficult jury, but we had the jury of the American people, which was ultimately the more important jury.
Do you want people to be thinking about this process when they vote in November?
I think that they should bear in mind the president's serious misconduct and, perhaps even more importantly, his fundamental lack of character and morality. I think Americans should want someone committed to telling the truth. I think they should want someone who knows the difference between right and wrong and has a sense of decency, and these are qualities all lacking in the president of the United States.
Do you have any information that the president has solicited any other foreign interference anywhere in the world since this Ukraine affair seemed to have come to a close last fall?
Well, I mean, he certainly and very openly solicited China to interfere. And, you know, for those that said, well, surely he was joking —
He made a statement saying China should investigate Joe Biden, right?
Yes. The president, I think, has made it abundantly clear that he is not joking, that he would like China to do investigation of the Bidens, that he still wants Ukraine to do investigation the Bidens. Now, whether he has communicated privately to other countries. I don't know. What is said at the private meetings between the president and Vladimir Putin, I have no idea. But I think we have seen from displays like we saw in Helsinki, where he took the Kremlin dictator's views over his own intelligence agency's, this president is capable of anything. And if he is animated by the same philosophy expressed by Mr. Dershowitz — that if it's in his reelection interest is therefore the national interest and he can do no wrong — then we are deeply at risk.
Just before you and I sat down, we learned that the Senate Intelligence Committee has put out findings having to do with the 2016 election and inadequate efforts, as they said, to counter Russian interference in the election. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman, described paralysis of analysis, thinking really hard about the options and not really taking any of them. Do you agree that that is how the Obama administration handled interference last time?
I have been, really since that whole chapter, been critical of the Obama administration's handling of that. At the time, Sen. Feinstein and I urged, as we were watching in the summer of 2016, the Russians interfering, we urged the administration to go public, to attribute the hacking and interference to the Russians. There was reluctance by the Obama administration to do so.
It was a concern on their part that making an attribution in that way would be perceived as their, the Obama administration's, trying to put their hand on the scale in favor of the Clinton campaign as opposed the Trump campaign. But my feeling and Sen. Feinstein's was that the American people not only deserved to hear the truth but they need to, to make informed judgment.
You wish the president had said that more loudly? They put out a statement but he should have said it out loud?
He should have said that earlier, more loudly. Now, ultimately, they did make attribution, but it was from two agency heads in a written statement that came out on the same day as the Access Hollywood tapes. And so it was obscured. And, you know, some of my colleagues in the administration at the time pointed to that and said, well, you know, it was terrible timing. To me, that's not an adequate answer, because if it didn't get the attention it deserved — and it didn't — then there was nothing stopping others from going out and speaking and making the point much more emphatically.
Mark Warner, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, makes a very relevant point to now. He says the Obama administration was right to fear that if they made a warning of Russian interference, it would be seen as a partisan meddling in the election by President Obama. He then says that fear is still present today. It would be difficult now to warn against foreign interference without being seen as making a partisan point.
Well, that is a risk. And we included in the Intelligence Authorization Act a requirement that the director of national intelligence make a public acknowledgment if there is foreign interference that the intelligence community discovers prior to election. We wanted to make that a requirement so that it wouldn't be discretionary.
Now, there will always be second guessing about when such a statement is made and how it is made. But we can't shrink from that, notwithstanding that one side or the other can claim some poor motive. The American people need to know if someone is trying to monkey with our election. And so I thought then, I think now, that regardless of how the chips may fall, if the intelligence community determines that a foreign power is trying to intervene, they need to speak publicly about it.
Which foreign actors, if any, are trying to influence the U.S. election now?
It is still predominantly the Russians. They are the gravest threat of election interference. And it really hasn't stopped since 2016. They will be better able to hide their hand in 2020. They have new tools that they can use, including deepfake technology that allows the production and dissemination of very realistic audio or video of speeches or photos or audio recordings that are completely forged — events that didn't take place, speeches that weren't given, things that weren't said — but can do so in a really convincing way. Or, as we saw in the cheap fake released of Nancy Pelosi, where one of her speeches was slowed down and the pitch was raised, so it looked like she was impaired, they can play into narratives that they want to advance.
You're calling that a cheap fake because that was not the most sophisticated thing that could have been done? Something far worse could have been done or harder to detect?
Yes, I think probably any teenager could do that. And yet it got millions and millions of views and it was pushed out by the president and his allies even after they knew that it was a forgery. And, you know, this is a profound risk.
And the Russians are active now in a manner that is similar to the way they were in 2016?
Yes. Yes, I mean, there's certainly, you know, the two main vectors of Russian interference in 2016 were their massive social media campaign on Donald Trump's behalf and hacking and dumping operation, which also helped Trump and targeted Hillary Clinton. Now, in this cycle, they're certainly still active in social media. And if the public reports are correct, they're also active in a hacking operation. They apparently targeted Burisma [Holdings] and this time they could very well do something that I was deeply concerned about in 2016, which is, in 2016, they hacked the DNC and the DCCC, the Democratic headquarters, and they released stolen but largely authentic documents. This time they don't have to be authentic. They could hack Burisma. They could release real Burisma documents, but they could also release forgeries about Hunter Biden or anyone else. And it would be almost impossible to disprove if they were dumped in the last few weeks of an election. And so the potential for mischief is even greater.
Does any of this keep you up at night, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, it does. The idea that we could have another close election with, once again, sizable foreign interference with a president who, rather than rejects it, welcomes it, and it lead to a disputed result would be catastrophic for the country. And so it concerns me a great deal. And I think the best that we can do is to be vigilant, to try to develop a bipartisan consensus, which we lacked in the last election, that we will all reject foreign interference of any kind. It will be a liability rather than an asset for whoever it's intended to help. We will all call it out and we'll all do our civic duty and we will turn out in droves on Election Day.
Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for your time.
Thank you.


npr--2020-02-07--Judge Hands Down Harshest Penalty Yet From College Admissions Scandal

Judge Hands Down Harshest Penalty Yet From College Admissions Scandal A federal judge in Boston has handed down the stiffest penalty yet in the massive college admissions scandal .
Douglas Hodge , the former CEO of the global investment giant PIMCO , has been sentenced to nine months in prison .
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton also sentenced Hodge , 61 , to two years of supervised release and 500 hours of community service .
He also must pay a fine of $ 750,000 .
The sentence is much less than the 24 months prosecutors were seeking for Hodge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sentences to date of others involved in the scandal .
For example , actress Felicity Huffman was released after 11 days of a 14-day sentence .
And former Stanford sailing coach John Vandemoer did not face jail time – he was sentenced to two years of supervised release .
Some 15 people have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to date , according to The Associated Press .
Last March , the Justice Department charged 50 people for their alleged roles in the fraud , which involved allegedly cheating on standardized tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chances that the children of wealthy parents would be admitted to elite colleges .
In some cases , including Hodge 's , parents bribed coaches at elite universities in order to get their children designated as athletic recruits .
Prosecutors say that he paid some $ 850,000 to help secure admission for his four children – two at University of Southern California and two at Georgetown University .
In October , Hodge pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud .
`` I have in my heart the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said in a letter to the judge last month .
`` I know that I unfairly , and ultimately illegally , tipped the scales in favor of my children over others , over the hopes and dreams of other parents , who had the same aspirations for their children as I did for mine . ''
`` I am accountable for my actions , and I am prepared to accept the consequences of my wrongful conduct , '' he said .
His lawyers added that Hodge plans to `` redouble his efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
They pleaded for the court to hand down a `` just sentence that is sufficient , but not greater than necessary . ''
Prosecutors told the court that they considered Hodge among the `` most culpable '' of the parents charged .
They described him as a repeat player , `` who engaged in the conspiracy again and again , over years . ''
According to prosecutors , in 2008 , Hodge first paid for a Georgetown tennis coach to fraudulently recruit his daughter , making it easier for her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As part of the scheme , the mastermind behind the cheating scheme , Rick Singer , fabricated the girl 's tennis accomplishments .
For example , the application claimed that she had built a tennis court in a Cambodian jungle .
Prosecutors say that Hodge carried out the same type of fraud two years later to secure his son admission to Georgetown , claiming that he was `` one of Japan 's top youth tennis players '' even though he was not competitive in the sport .
In 2013 , his younger daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that claimed she was `` co-captain of a Japanese national soccer team , '' court documents stated .
The next year , he agreed to pay bribes to get his son admitted to USC as a football recruit .
Prosecutors say he also tried to use bribes to gain a fifth child admission to Loyola Marymount University , but did not succeed .

Judge Hands Down Harshest Penalty Yet From College Admissions Scandal
Enlarge this image toggle caption Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
A federal judge in Boston has handed down the stiffest penalty yet in the massive college admissions scandal. Douglas Hodge, the former CEO of the global investment giant PIMCO, has been sentenced to nine months in prison.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton also sentenced Hodge, 61, to two years of supervised release and 500 hours of community service. He also must pay a fine of $750,000.
The sentence is much less than the 24 months prosecutors were seeking for Hodge. But it's also far longer than the sentences to date of others involved in the scandal. For example, actress Felicity Huffman was released after 11 days of a 14-day sentence. And former Stanford sailing coach John Vandemoer did not face jail time – he was sentenced to two years of supervised release.
Some 15 people have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to date, according to The Associated Press.
Last March, the Justice Department charged 50 people for their alleged roles in the fraud, which involved allegedly cheating on standardized tests or falsifying athletic achievements to increase the chances that the children of wealthy parents would be admitted to elite colleges.
In some cases, including Hodge's, parents bribed coaches at elite universities in order to get their children designated as athletic recruits. Prosecutors say that he paid some $850,000 to help secure admission for his four children – two at University of Southern California and two at Georgetown University.
In October, Hodge pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
"I have in my heart the deepest remorse for my actions," he said in a letter to the judge last month. "I know that I unfairly, and ultimately illegally, tipped the scales in favor of my children over others, over the hopes and dreams of other parents, who had the same aspirations for their children as I did for mine."
"I am accountable for my actions, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of my wrongful conduct," he said.
His lawyers added that Hodge plans to "redouble his efforts to create educational opportunities for underserved children." They pleaded for the court to hand down a "just sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary."
Prosecutors told the court that they considered Hodge among the "most culpable" of the parents charged. They described him as a repeat player, "who engaged in the conspiracy again and again, over years."
According to prosecutors, in 2008, Hodge first paid for a Georgetown tennis coach to fraudulently recruit his daughter, making it easier for her to obtain admission to the elite university. As part of the scheme, the mastermind behind the cheating scheme, Rick Singer, fabricated the girl's tennis accomplishments. For example, the application claimed that she had built a tennis court in a Cambodian jungle.
Prosecutors say that Hodge carried out the same type of fraud two years later to secure his son admission to Georgetown, claiming that he was "one of Japan's top youth tennis players" even though he was not competitive in the sport.
In 2013, his younger daughter was admitted to USC with an application that claimed she was "co-captain of a Japanese national soccer team," court documents stated. The next year, he agreed to pay bribes to get his son admitted to USC as a football recruit.
Prosecutors say he also tried to use bribes to gain a fifth child admission to Loyola Marymount University, but did not succeed.