npr--2020-01-07--Ikea Reaches $46 Million Settlement Over Death Of Toddler Killed By Dresser Tip-Over

Ikea Reaches $ 46 Million Settlement Over Death Of Toddler Killed By Dresser Tip-Over Ikea has agreed to pay $ 46 million to a California family whose 2-year-old son , Jozef Dudek , was killed when an unsecured Ikea dresser fell on top of him .
The family 's lawyers say the dresser model was `` inherently unstable . ''
At least eight children are believed to have been killed by dressers that the Swedish furniture giant has recalled , according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission .
Daniel Mann , a lawyer for the Dudek family , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be in use .
The recalled dressers pose a risk of tipping over if they are not secured to the wall .
Ikea has previously said that the products were not designed to be free-standing .
Joleen and Craig Dudek , Jozef 's parents , say that they are `` telling our story because we do not want this to happen to another family . ''
The family is donating $ 1 million of the settlement money to organizations that advocate to protect kids from unsafe products .
According to Mann , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outreach to consumers about the recalled dressers .
Mann said he wants to see the company email consumers who purchased the hazardous dressers to warn them of the risks .
An Ikea spokesperson confirmed the amount of the settlement with the Dudek family , which was agreed upon in late December .
`` While no settlement can alter the tragic events that brought us here , for the sake of the family and all involved , we 're grateful that this litigation has reached a resolution , '' the company spokesperson said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and collaboratively to address this very important home safety issue . ''
The deadly incident happened after Jozef 's father put him down for a nap in May 2017 .
`` He must have gotten up at some point and went over to an Ikea three-drawer Malm dresser that was in his room and pulled the dresser onto him , '' Mann said .
`` His father came in and found him with his head in between the middle drawer and the top drawer .
And Jozef was asphyxiated to death . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 and never received notice that it had been recalled , according to Mann .
The family filed the wrongful death lawsuit in 2018 in a Philadelphia court .
They accused the company of failing to adequately warn consumers that the dresser could be dangerous , despite knowing the risks .
The plaintiffs said that Ikea `` intentionally , willfully , wantonly and recklessly failed to adequately redesign the MALM dresser line to address the known risk of injury and death , failed to cease sale of the MALM line , failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of injury and death and failed to institute a voluntary recall of the MALM line until after a number of children lost their lives . ''
Mann 's law firm , Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP , has also represented the families of three other toddlers who died as a result of Malm dresser tip-overs .
In 2016 , Ikea settled the cases filed by the families of Curren Collas , Camden Ellis and Ted McGee for a total of $ 50 million .
As NPR has reported , after Curren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started to offer free wall-mounting kits to customers .
It encouraged them to secure their dressers to the wall to try to prevent children from tipping them over .
A group of consumer safety groups criticized Ikea at the time for encouraging wall mounting rather than urging owners to return the dressers , as NPR reported .
The groups , which included the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Consumer Federation of America , said , `` Anchoring devices are meant as a second layer of protection for stable dressers — not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place . ''
After Ted 's death in 2016 , the company recalled an estimated 17 million dressers from Malm and several other lines .
Mann said that when Ikea initially released the dresser line , it did not participate in voluntary tip-over testing from a furniture industry trade group that he said is standard for the `` vast majority '' of U.S. furniture manufacturers .
`` There are a number of things that manufacturers can do to make dressers safer , '' said Mann .
He said it 's not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dresser is — it 's also how the weight is distributed .
To make a dresser more tip resistant , manufacturers can do things such as making the base drawer as deep as possible and putting more weight at the bottom than the top .
After Ikiea recalled the Malm dressers , it eventually redesigned them .
The new product is `` marginally better '' than the old one , Mann said .

Ikea Reaches $46 Million Settlement Over Death Of Toddler Killed By Dresser Tip-Over
Enlarge this image toggle caption Dudek Family Dudek Family
Ikea has agreed to pay $46 million to a California family whose 2-year-old son, Jozef Dudek, was killed when an unsecured Ikea dresser fell on top of him. The family's lawyers say the dresser model was "inherently unstable."
At least eight children are believed to have been killed by dressers that the Swedish furniture giant has recalled, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Daniel Mann, a lawyer for the Dudek family, said that millions of the recalled dressers may still be in use.
The recalled dressers pose a risk of tipping over if they are not secured to the wall. Ikea has previously said that the products were not designed to be free-standing.
Joleen and Craig Dudek, Jozef's parents, say that they are "telling our story because we do not want this to happen to another family."
toggle caption U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
The family is donating $1 million of the settlement money to organizations that advocate to protect kids from unsafe products. According to Mann, Ikea has also committed to broaden its outreach to consumers about the recalled dressers. Mann said he wants to see the company email consumers who purchased the hazardous dressers to warn them of the risks.
An Ikea spokesperson confirmed the amount of the settlement with the Dudek family, which was agreed upon in late December.
"While no settlement can alter the tragic events that brought us here, for the sake of the family and all involved, we're grateful that this litigation has reached a resolution," the company spokesperson said. "We remain committed to working proactively and collaboratively to address this very important home safety issue."
The deadly incident happened after Jozef's father put him down for a nap in May 2017.
"He must have gotten up at some point and went over to an Ikea three-drawer Malm dresser that was in his room and pulled the dresser onto him," Mann said. "His father came in and found him with his head in between the middle drawer and the top drawer. And Jozef was asphyxiated to death."
The Dudeks had purchased the dresser in 2008 and never received notice that it had been recalled, according to Mann.
The family filed the wrongful death lawsuit in 2018 in a Philadelphia court. They accused the company of failing to adequately warn consumers that the dresser could be dangerous, despite knowing the risks.
The plaintiffs said that Ikea "intentionally, willfully, wantonly and recklessly failed to adequately redesign the MALM dresser line to address the known risk of injury and death, failed to cease sale of the MALM line, failed to warn the public of the known risk of injury and death and failed to institute a voluntary recall of the MALM line until after a number of children lost their lives."
Mann's law firm, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP, has also represented the families of three other toddlers who died as a result of Malm dresser tip-overs. In 2016, Ikea settled the cases filed by the families of Curren Collas, Camden Ellis and Ted McGee for a total of $50 million.
As NPR has reported, after Curren and Camden died in 2014, Ikea started to offer free wall-mounting kits to customers. It encouraged them to secure their dressers to the wall to try to prevent children from tipping them over.
A group of consumer safety groups criticized Ikea at the time for encouraging wall mounting rather than urging owners to return the dressers, as NPR reported. The groups, which included the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Consumer Federation of America, said, "Anchoring devices are meant as a second layer of protection for stable dressers — not as a replacement for making stable dressers in the first place."
After Ted's death in 2016, the company recalled an estimated 17 million dressers from Malm and several other lines.
Mann said that when Ikea initially released the dresser line, it did not participate in voluntary tip-over testing from a furniture industry trade group that he said is standard for the "vast majority" of U.S. furniture manufacturers.
"There are a number of things that manufacturers can do to make dressers safer," said Mann. He said it's not just a function of how heavy a dresser is — it's also how the weight is distributed. To make a dresser more tip resistant, manufacturers can do things such as making the base drawer as deep as possible and putting more weight at the bottom than the top.
After Ikea recalled the Malm dressers, it eventually redesigned them. The new product is "marginally better" than the old one, Mann said.


npr--2020-01-07--Australian Fires Prompt Questions About Protecting Houses From Embers

Embers are raining down on communities across Australia .
`` The strong winds of a thunderstorm came through , but instead of raining water it was raining embers , '' one resident told The Sydney Morning Herald .
Another described how , as he and his family tried to evacuate on New Year 's Eve , `` burning embers started falling and houses were starting to get lost . ''
More than two dozen people have died in wildfires that started burning in Australia in September .
In recent weeks , fires on the east coast of the country have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather , burning through millions of acres and forcing thousands of residents to evacuate .
Nearly 2,000 homes have been destroyed .
And the airborne embers — not the flames — are largely to blame .
`` We 've really started to isolate that it 's not necessarily the wall of flames that 's igniting homes , '' says Daniel Gorham , a research engineer with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety in the United States .
`` Rather , the embers that are traveling ahead of the fire are igniting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the farther it can disperse embers , and the larger and more dangerous those embers can be .
As climate change exacerbates heat waves , droughts and poor land use decisions in Australia 's arid regions , bushfires are getting larger and more intense — exactly the types of blazes that can fling embers for miles .
`` A bigger fire is more powerful because the heat , '' explains Gorham .
Big , hot fires like the ones currently burning on the east coast of Australia suck in massive amounts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and sends everything thousands of feet into the air in a giant plume .
`` What we 're seeing in Australia right now we 're covering a lot of area with a lot of flame , '' Gorham says .
`` These fires are most definitely generating their own weather , and that weather picks up the embers and the firebrands , lofts them up and casts them way outside the fire perimeter , '' threatening homes far from the center of the blaze .
Fire scientists have known for decades that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disperse potentially dangerous embers , but it 's only in more recent years that the role of embers has begun to influence building regulations in Australia .
A 2010 paper published by Australia 's national research agency , the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation , suggested that the vast majority of homes that burn during bushfires are ignited by embers .
In the last decade , `` we 've shifted toward a recognition that ember attack on the house , and on things around the house , is the process that 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and therefore [ we 're ] focusing on building design and landscaping design that 's more resistant to embers , '' says Justin Leonard , a research leader in bushfire urban design at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation .
Australia 's national building standards are updated every decade on average .
The most recent standards were adopted in May 2019 .
`` One of the things we improved for 2019 was the size of gaps in the envelope of a building , '' explains Ian Weir , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researcher at Queensland University of Technology who studies bushfire responsive architecture .
Weir says Australian research makes clear that embers are an overwhelming threat to homes , but American research has been crucial for figuring our how to make houses more resilient to flaming debris .
Weir and his regulatory colleagues relied heavily on research conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology , which looked at how embers get lodged in gaps around doors , windows , roof vents and other architectural features .
`` They 've done some great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the gaps at which we start to lose houses , '' Weir says , `` and they 've found that anything greater than 2 millimeters , we enable the embers sufficiently large to ignite wall cavities and furniture and so on . ''
By requiring that new homes built in fire-prone area close those gaps , they reduced the risk for the whole neighborhood . ''
Once the house is ignited , the neighboring house is pretty quickly ignited as well , '' he says .
But as this season 's massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards can only do so much .
For one thing , most standards only apply to new buildings .
`` The urban renewal process is slow , '' Leonard says .
`` The houses that have been lost in these fires are more than 10-year-old buildings , so they would not have benefited from the improvements in our building regulations . ''
Weir says Australia 's current building and planning regulations also place too much emphasis on removing vegetation from around homes — a principle he says was adopted from California .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have a buffer where combustible vegetation is kept to a minimum , to make the house easier to defend against fire .
But `` what we 've found in Australia is a much too great a reliance on defendable zones , '' says Weir .
For homeowners , it 's less expensive to cut back vegetation than to retrofit houses to be more fire resistant , or to build new homes that meet the latest standards .
The result is that many homes are dangerously flammable .
`` We 're enabling quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very extreme bushfire areas , because we 're relying on defendable zones to provide the bushfire protection , '' says Weir .
And there 's another reason that removing vegetation will not , on its own , help Australia get control of deadly wildfires : desertification .
One of the most pernicious effects of climate change in Australia is the irreversible drying out of the already arid and overworked landscape in many parts of the country .
Keeping vegetation intact is the best way to mitigate that .
But as fires get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clear vegetation from neighborhoods also increases .
`` If we rely on defendable zones , we just keep increasing those zones , that invariably leads to desertification , '' says Weir , describing a vicious cycle where land-clearing exacerbates drought — which makes extreme fire more likely .
Maintaining the very vegetation that can make it more difficult to defend a home against wildfire , however , `` minimizes drought conditions around a home , and reduces that local fire danger index , '' he explains .
`` So there 's a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ''

Australian Fires Prompt Questions About Protecting Houses From Embers
Enlarge this image toggle caption Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images
Embers are raining down on communities across Australia.
"The strong winds of a thunderstorm came through, but instead of raining water it was raining embers," one resident told The Sydney Morning Herald. Another described how, as he and his family tried to evacuate on New Year's Eve, "burning embers started falling and houses were starting to get lost."
More than two dozen people have died in wildfires that started burning in Australia in September. In recent weeks, fires on the east coast of the country have spread quickly with the help of hot-dry weather, burning through millions of acres and forcing thousands of residents to evacuate. Nearly 2,000 homes have been destroyed.
And the airborne embers — not the flames — are largely to blame.
"We've really started to isolate that it's not necessarily the wall of flames that's igniting homes," says Daniel Gorham, a research engineer with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety in the United States. "Rather, the embers that are traveling ahead of the fire are igniting homes."
The bigger the fire, the farther it can disperse embers, and the larger and more dangerous those embers can be. As climate change exacerbates heat waves, droughts and poor land use decisions in Australia's arid regions, bushfires are getting larger and more intense — exactly the types of blazes that can fling embers for miles.
Notes Embers are blown towards a model home at a research facility run by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Some building materials and architectural features are more susceptible than others to ember ignition.
"A bigger fire is more powerful because the heat," explains Gorham. Big, hot fires like the ones currently burning on the east coast of Australia suck in massive amounts of air and burning debris at their base, and sends everything thousands of feet into the air in a giant plume.
"What we're seeing in Australia right now we're covering a lot of area with a lot of flame," Gorham says. "These fires are most definitely generating their own weather, and that weather picks up the embers and the firebrands, lofts them up and casts them way outside the fire perimeter," threatening homes far from the center of the blaze.
Fire scientists have known for decades that fires — especially large fires — could disperse potentially dangerous embers, but it's only in more recent years that the role of embers has begun to influence building regulations in Australia.
A 2010 paper published by Australia's national research agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, suggested that the vast majority of homes that burn during bushfires are ignited by embers.
In the last decade, "we've shifted toward a recognition that ember attack on the house, and on things around the house, is the process that's most dominant in causing houses to ignite, and therefore [we're] focusing on building design and landscaping design that's more resistant to embers," says Justin Leonard, a research leader in bushfire urban design at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Australia's national building standards are updated every decade on average. The most recent standards were adopted in May 2019.
"One of the things we improved for 2019 was the size of gaps in the envelope of a building," explains Ian Weir, one of the authors of the standards, and a researcher at Queensland University of Technology who studies bushfire responsive architecture. Weir says Australian research makes clear that embers are an overwhelming threat to homes, but American research has been crucial for figuring our how to make houses more resilient to flaming debris.
Weir and his regulatory colleagues relied heavily on research conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, which looked at how embers get lodged in gaps around doors, windows, roof vents and other architectural features.
"They've done some great research on exactly what is the dimension of the gaps at which we start to lose houses," Weir says, "and they've found that anything greater than 2 millimeters, we enable the embers sufficiently large to ignite wall cavities and furniture and so on."
By requiring that new homes built in fire-prone area close those gaps, they reduced the risk for the whole neighborhood. "Once the house is ignited, the neighboring house is pretty quickly ignited as well," he says.
But as this season's massive fires make clear, the updated building standards can only do so much. For one thing, most standards only apply to new buildings.
"The urban renewal process is slow," Leonard says. "The houses that have been lost in these fires are more than 10-year-old buildings, so they would not have benefited from the improvements in our building regulations."
Weir says Australia's current building and planning regulations also place too much emphasis on removing vegetation from around homes — a principle he says was adopted from California.
The idea is that homes in fire-prone areas should have a buffer where combustible vegetation is kept to a minimum, to make the house easier to defend against fire. But "what we've found in Australia is a much too great a reliance on defendable zones," says Weir. For homeowners, it's less expensive to cut back vegetation than to retrofit houses to be more fire resistant, or to build new homes that meet the latest standards.
The result is that many homes are dangerously flammable. "We're enabling quite conventional homes to be built in very, very extreme bushfire areas, because we're relying on defendable zones to provide the bushfire protection," says Weir.
Notes Embers land in combustible vegetation at a research facility run by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety in South Carolina.
And there's another reason that removing vegetation will not, on its own, help Australia get control of deadly wildfires: desertification.
One of the most pernicious effects of climate change in Australia is the irreversible drying out of the already arid and overworked landscape in many parts of the country. Keeping vegetation intact is the best way to mitigate that. But as fires get more intense and widespread, the pressure to clear vegetation from neighborhoods also increases.
"If we rely on defendable zones, we just keep increasing those zones, that invariably leads to desertification," says Weir, describing a vicious cycle where land-clearing exacerbates drought — which makes extreme fire more likely.
Maintaining the very vegetation that can make it more difficult to defend a home against wildfire, however, "minimizes drought conditions around a home, and reduces that local fire danger index," he explains. "So there's a kind of paradox in the relationship."


npr--2020-01-07--McConnell Will Move Ahead With Impeachment Trial Rules Without Democrats' Support

McConnell Will Move Ahead With Impeachment Trial Rules Without Democrats ' Support Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , says he has the votes to establish rules for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump without support from Democrats .
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that he has abandoned attempts to reach an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , after weeks of public bickering over Democrats ' demands to agree on a set of witnesses and rules for evidence in the trial .
The decision to move ahead with the rules puts new pressure on House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release the House-passed articles of impeachment so that a trial may begin .
`` We have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same , very similar to the 100-to-nothing vote in the Clinton trial , which sets up as you may recall what could best be described as a maybe a phase one , '' McConnell said about the process .
He said the resolution would lay out a process for arguments from the prosecution , arguments from the president 's defense team and written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is modeling the rules on the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton .
At the time , senators voted unanimously to approve a basic outline of how the trial would be conducted .
They saved the question of witnesses and evidence for a second set of rules that were later approved along party lines .
McConnell said he anticipated addressing questions about witnesses after the first phase of the trial was complete .
But Senate Democrats say the facts and circumstances of the Trump impeachment process can not be compared to the Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House blocked key witnesses from appearing before the House and that they need to be vetted in the Senate .
`` Democrats believe that a fair trial means that all of the relevant facts come out , '' Schumer said .
`` And witnesses and documents are part of that fair process . ''
Senate Democrats have refused to agree to that two-step process , saying it makes it less likely that any new witnesses will be called .
Schumer has called it `` a poorly disguised trap . ''
Schumer and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four witnesses who refused to testify before the House .
The list includes acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton .
Their demands were heightened this week after Bolton announced he would testify under a Senate subpoena .
`` Momentum for uncovering the truth in a Senate trial continues , '' Schumer said in a statement following Bolton 's announcement .
`` If any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents , we have requested they would make absolutely clear they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell said the Senate can not move ahead with a vote on the resolution until Pelosi sends the articles over from the House .
Schumer suggested that he believes Pelosi will do so soon and maintained that her strategy helped put pressure on Republicans to answer questions about witnesses .
Pelosi 's office declined to comment on her plans .
Under existing Senate rules , Democrats can still try to call witnesses once a trial has begun , but they would need 51 votes to do so .
That means persuading four Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political trial of a GOP president .
McConnell 's decision to forgo further negotiations on the rules also signals that he believes that at least 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans will vote to support his plan .
Sen. Kevin Cramer , R-N.D. , told reporters Tuesday that McConnell has been clear about his plans and that top Senate GOP leaders have been counting votes for the rules in recent days .
`` He 's made no bones about his desire to do it that way and he has made the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly , '' Cramer said .
`` His floor speeches have been filled with that and so he 's been very transparent about the process . ''
Democrats had hoped to persuade some moderate Republicans , like Sens .
Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , Susan Collins , R-Maine , and Mitt Romney , R-Utah , to push for a bipartisan process .
Collins and Murkowski in particular have said they are uncomfortable with statements McConnell has made about being `` in lockstep with the White House '' on impeachment .
But in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Collins and Murkowski , have said they support McConnell 's plan to base the process on the Clinton trial .
Collins told Maine Public Radio that she would like the rules to be adopted with unanimous bipartisan support , but she `` ca n't imagine anything like that happening today , regrettably . ''
McConnell did not provide a timeline for voting on the rules , but by simply establishing a plan , he now shifts greater pressure on Pelosi to release the articles of impeachment .
Pelosi has said she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell to agree to Schumer 's request for witnesses .
The Senate is scheduled to consider judicial nominations for the remainder of the week but could interrupt their plans to vote on the rules once the articles of impeachment are received .

McConnell Will Move Ahead With Impeachment Trial Rules Without Democrats' Support
Enlarge this image toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP Susan Walsh/AP
Updated at 4:25 p.m. ET
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says he has the votes to establish rules for the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump without support from Democrats.
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that he has abandoned attempts to reach an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., after weeks of public bickering over Democrats' demands to agree on a set of witnesses and rules for evidence in the trial. The decision to move ahead with the rules puts new pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to release the House-passed articles of impeachment so that a trial may begin.
"We have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100-to-nothing vote in the Clinton trial, which sets up as you may recall what could best be described as a maybe a phase one," McConnell said about the process. He said the resolution would lay out a process for arguments from the prosecution, arguments from the president's defense team and written questions from senators.
McConnell noted he is modeling the rules on the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton. At the time, senators voted unanimously to approve a basic outline of how the trial would be conducted. They saved the question of witnesses and evidence for a second set of rules that were later approved along party lines. McConnell said he anticipated addressing questions about witnesses after the first phase of the trial was complete.
But Senate Democrats say the facts and circumstances of the Trump impeachment process cannot be compared to the Clinton trial. They say that the White House blocked key witnesses from appearing before the House and that they need to be vetted in the Senate.
"Democrats believe that a fair trial means that all of the relevant facts come out," Schumer said. "And witnesses and documents are part of that fair process."
Politics Pelosi, McConnell And Their Impeachment Strategies Pelosi, McConnell And Impeachment Listen · 4:14 4:14
Senate Democrats have refused to agree to that two-step process, saying it makes it less likely that any new witnesses will be called. Schumer has called it "a poorly disguised trap."
Schumer and other Democrats say they need to hear from four witnesses who refused to testify before the House. The list includes acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. Their demands were heightened this week after Bolton announced he would testify under a Senate subpoena.
"Momentum for uncovering the truth in a Senate trial continues," Schumer said in a statement following Bolton's announcement. "If any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents, we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover-up."
McConnell said the Senate cannot move ahead with a vote on the resolution until Pelosi sends the articles over from the House.
Schumer suggested that he believes Pelosi will do so soon and maintained that her strategy helped put pressure on Republicans to answer questions about witnesses. Pelosi's office declined to comment on her plans.
Under existing Senate rules, Democrats can still try to call witnesses once a trial has begun, but they would need 51 votes to do so. That means persuading four Republicans to agree, a high bar in the political trial of a GOP president.
McConnell's decision to forgo further negotiations on the rules also signals that he believes that at least 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans will vote to support his plan. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told reporters Tuesday that McConnell has been clear about his plans and that top Senate GOP leaders have been counting votes for the rules in recent days.
"He's made no bones about his desire to do it that way and he has made the case to us privately, to the country publicly," Cramer said. "His floor speeches have been filled with that and so he's been very transparent about the process."
Democrats had hoped to persuade some moderate Republicans, like Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, to push for a bipartisan process. Collins and Murkowski in particular have said they are uncomfortable with statements McConnell has made about being "in lockstep with the White House" on impeachment.
But in recent weeks, most Republicans, including moderates like Collins and Murkowski, have said they support McConnell's plan to base the process on the Clinton trial.
Collins told Maine Public Radio that she would like the rules to be adopted with unanimous bipartisan support, but she "can't imagine anything like that happening today, regrettably."
McConnell did not provide a timeline for voting on the rules, but by simply establishing a plan, he now shifts greater pressure on Pelosi to release the articles of impeachment. Pelosi has said she is withholding the articles to try to pressure McConnell to agree to Schumer's request for witnesses.
The Senate is scheduled to consider judicial nominations for the remainder of the week but could interrupt their plans to vote on the rules once the articles of impeachment are received.
NPR congressional reporter Claudia Grisales contributed to this report


npr--2020-01-07--In Iran Speech, Biden Calls Escalating Tension Avoidable And Dangerous

Leading Democratic presidential candidates on Tuesday blasted President Trump 's decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , casting it as a dangerous escalation in a volatile region .
Former Vice President Joe Biden delivered a speech in New York City in which he labeled the deadly strike as the latest in a series of `` dangerously incompetent '' steps taken by Trump .
Speaking to NPR , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders warned : `` When you go around assassinating a government official , you unleash international anarchy and all the rules are gone .
...
I get very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential loss of life in endless wars , but right now in this country , we have massive , massive domestic needs . ''
And appearing on ABC 's The View , Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that the job of the president is to keep America safe and that Trump has `` taken us in exactly the opposite direction . ''
During his New York speech , Biden tied the U.S. drone strike directly to Trump 's decision to walk away from the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` This was avoidable , '' Biden said .
`` The seeds of these dangers were planted by Donald Trump himself on May 8 , 2018 — the day he tore up the Iran nuclear deal , against the advice of his own top national security advisers . ''
The speech by Biden , who was in New York also to raise money , is the former vice president 's latest attempt to focus on Trump 's decision to kill Soleimani .
Biden has long framed himself as the Democratic candidate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his party believes the Trump administration has frayed .
Biden spent years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before serving as an international point main during his eight years as President Barack Obama 's vice president .
Biden has said the Soleimani killing — and Trump 's behavior in its wake — are prime examples of the spur-of-the-moment decision-making he says is damaging the United States ' national security and standing in the world .
The Trump administration has said that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack on the U.S. `` We saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , '' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday afternoon .
But in his speech , Biden criticized what he said have been Trump 's limited explanations for the strike in the days since it was carried out .
`` We have not heard a sober-minded explanation to reassure the American people about his decision and its consequences , '' Biden said .
`` Not level-headed words meant to dial down tensions and take us off the path of conflict .
No press conference or consultation with Congress .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this president are tweets , threats and tantrums . ''
Later , Biden spoke directly to Trump : `` You have to speak directly to the American people .
That 's your job , as president . ''
A return to the negotiating table with Iran has been a centerpiece of the Biden campaign 's foreign policy vision .
After the Soleimani killing , Iran has said it wo n't honor its commitments to limit its enrichment of uranium — a key component of the nuclear pact .
Biden , who did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did not say directly whether he thinks the nuclear deal is salvageable .
But he indicated that if Iran shifts gears , it could be .
`` The only way out of this crisis is diplomacy , '' Biden said .
Warren , in her ABC appearance , also blamed heightened tensions with Iran on Trump 's leaving the nuclear deal .
This summer , after Iran had already exceeded the agreement 's uranium-enrichment levels , Biden said he still believed the deal could hold .
`` If Tehran returns to compliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agreement and work with our allies to strengthen and extend it , while more effectively pushing back against Iran 's destabilizing activities , '' he said during a July foreign policy speech .
While Biden has framed his potential administration as a mission to undo Trump 's foreign policy legacy , he conceded Tuesday that the task would be difficult .
`` We 're in a much worse position to meet the demands of this crisis than we were when President Obama and I left office , '' Biden said .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that `` endless wars and the so-called war on terrorism [ have ] , by and large , been a disaster .
`` So what you need to do , '' he added , `` is end endless wars by withdrawing American troops in an appropriate , well-thought-out way , not through a tweet , not by getting booted out , not by a phone call with somebody , not by a program on Fox television .
You do it working with your allies and working with , in fact , the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent and as positive as possible . ''

In Iran Speech, Biden Calls Escalating Tension Avoidable And Dangerous
Enlarge this image toggle caption Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 5:11 p.m. ET
Leading Democratic presidential candidates on Tuesday blasted President Trump's decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, casting it as a dangerous escalation in a volatile region.
Former Vice President Joe Biden delivered a speech in New York City in which he labeled the deadly strike as the latest in a series of "dangerously incompetent" steps taken by Trump.
Speaking to NPR, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders warned: "When you go around assassinating a government official, you unleash international anarchy and all the rules are gone. ... I get very nervous about it. Not only for the potential loss of life in endless wars, but right now in this country, we have massive, massive domestic needs."
And appearing on ABC's The View, Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that the job of the president is to keep America safe and that Trump has "taken us in exactly the opposite direction."
Biden's case
During his New York speech, Biden tied the U.S. drone strike directly to Trump's decision to walk away from the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration and other nations struck with Iran in 2015.
"This was avoidable," Biden said. "The seeds of these dangers were planted by Donald Trump himself on May 8, 2018 — the day he tore up the Iran nuclear deal, against the advice of his own top national security advisers."
Trump has called the nuclear pact a "horrible, one-sided deal."
The speech by Biden, who was in New York also to raise money, is the former vice president's latest attempt to focus on Trump's decision to kill Soleimani.
Biden has long framed himself as the Democratic candidate who is best-positioned to repair the international relationships his party believes the Trump administration has frayed. Biden spent years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before serving as an international point main during his eight years as President Barack Obama's vice president.
Biden has said the Soleimani killing — and Trump's behavior in its wake — are prime examples of the spur-of-the-moment decision-making he says is damaging the United States' national security and standing in the world.
The Trump administration has said that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack on the U.S. "We saved a lot of lives by terminating his life," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday afternoon.
But in his speech, Biden criticized what he said have been Trump's limited explanations for the strike in the days since it was carried out.
"We have not heard a sober-minded explanation to reassure the American people about his decision and its consequences," Biden said. "Not level-headed words meant to dial down tensions and take us off the path of conflict. No press conference or consultation with Congress. No, what we've heard so far from this president are tweets, threats and tantrums."
Later, Biden spoke directly to Trump: "You have to speak directly to the American people. That's your job, as president."
Looking ahead
A return to the negotiating table with Iran has been a centerpiece of the Biden campaign's foreign policy vision. After the Soleimani killing, Iran has said it won't honor its commitments to limit its enrichment of uranium — a key component of the nuclear pact.
Biden, who did not take questions after the 20-minute speech, did not say directly whether he thinks the nuclear deal is salvageable. But he indicated that if Iran shifts gears, it could be.
"The only way out of this crisis is diplomacy," Biden said.
Warren, in her ABC appearance, also blamed heightened tensions with Iran on Trump's leaving the nuclear deal.
This summer, after Iran had already exceeded the agreement's uranium-enrichment levels, Biden said he still believed the deal could hold.
"If Tehran returns to compliance with the deal, I would rejoin the agreement and work with our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran's destabilizing activities," he said during a July foreign policy speech.
While Biden has framed his potential administration as a mission to undo Trump's foreign policy legacy, he conceded Tuesday that the task would be difficult.
"We're in a much worse position to meet the demands of this crisis than we were when President Obama and I left office," Biden said.
Sanders, for his part, told NPR that "endless wars and the so-called war on terrorism [have], by and large, been a disaster.
"So what you need to do," he added, "is end endless wars by withdrawing American troops in an appropriate, well-thought-out way, not through a tweet, not by getting booted out, not by a phone call with somebody, not by a program on Fox television. You do it working with your allies and working with, in fact, the people of Iraq to make the withdrawal as consistent and as positive as possible."
Additional reporting by NPR deputy politics editor Benjamin Swasey.


npr--2020-01-07--India Sets Executions For The 4 Men Convicted In New Delhi Bus Rape And Murder

India Sets Executions For The 4 Men Convicted In New Delhi Bus Rape And Murder A court in India has issued a death warrant for four men convicted in the fatal 2012 gang rape of a college student on a New Delhi bus , a crime that sparked huge demonstrations and a nationwide reckoning over sexual violence in India .
The men are scheduled to be executed by hanging at 7 a.m. on Jan. 22 , the court in New Delhi announced Tuesday .
India 's president can still stay their execution , but he is not expected to intervene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court rejected a final appeal by one of the men convicted of rape and murder in the attack on a 23-year-old physiotherapy student , who can not be named under Indian law .
She has become known across India as `` Nirbhaya , '' or `` The Fearless One . ''
Prosecutors say she boarded a private bus with a male friend after seeing a film at a movie theater .
Inside the vehicle , a group of men beat the man with a metal bar , raped the woman and used the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
The two were abandoned on the side of the road .
About two weeks later , the woman died of her injuries .
Amid outrage over her death , protests erupted across India , and the country is still grappling with how to confront what activists call a national epidemic of sexual violence against women .
The `` Nirbhaya '' case prompted the Indian government to increase prison time for convicted rapists , and fast-track their trials .
But last month , new and similarly horrific rape cases grabbed headlines and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the southern Indian city of Hyderabad , police say a group of men deflated a 27-year-old woman 's tires , posed as good Samaritans to trick her — and then gang-raped and killed her .
Authorities discovered her burnt body in a wooded area the next day .
The suspects were arrested , but before they could be charged , police shot them dead in what many suspect was an extrajudicial killing , fueled by national anger .
Meanwhile , in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh , a 23-year-old woman on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged rapist was set on fire by a gang of men , allegedly including her man she had accused .
She also died of her injuries .
The brutality of these cases has renewed attention on the 2012 `` Nirbhaya '' case .
Indian media coverage of rape tends to focus on sensational details of cases in which victims are urban , educated professionals who get attacked by strangers .
But experts say those cases are very rare .
Most sexual assaults in the country are believed to happen within families .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower-caste women who know their attackers .
In 2017 , the most recent year for which data was available , there were nearly 33,000 cases of rape reported in India , according to national crime statistics .
That 's a quarter of the number of rapes reported in the United States that year , which has a quarter of India 's population .
Most rape is believed to go unreported in India .
According to the National Family Health Survey , 80 percent of women who experience sexual violence never tell anyone about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rare .
The last time the country used capital punishment in a rape and murder case was 15 years ago .
The country has carried out three executions since then , in terrorism cases .
The last execution in the country happened in 2015 .
The mother of the `` Nirbhaya '' victim told reporters outside the Delhi court Tuesday that it is the appropriate punishment for the four men convicted in her daughter 's death .
`` My daughter has got justice , '' said the mother .
`` Execution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country .
This decision will strengthen the trust of people in the judicial system . ''
The four men scheduled to be executed later this month were convicted and sentenced back in 2013 and have been detained since then .
A fifth man convicted in connection with the killing died in prison .
A sixth man , who was a minor at the time of the attack , was sentenced to the maximum penalty of three years in a reform facility .

India Sets Executions For The 4 Men Convicted In New Delhi Bus Rape And Murder
Enlarge this image toggle caption AP AP
A court in India has issued a death warrant for four men convicted in the fatal 2012 gang rape of a college student on a New Delhi bus, a crime that sparked huge demonstrations and a nationwide reckoning over sexual violence in India.
The men are scheduled to be executed by hanging at 7 a.m. on Jan. 22, the court in New Delhi announced Tuesday. India's president can still stay their execution, but he is not expected to intervene.
Last month, the Indian Supreme Court rejected a final appeal by one of the men convicted of rape and murder in the attack on a 23-year-old physiotherapy student, who cannot be named under Indian law. She has become known across India as "Nirbhaya," or "The Fearless One."
Prosecutors say she boarded a private bus with a male friend after seeing a film at a movie theater. Inside the vehicle, a group of men beat the man with a metal bar, raped the woman and used the bar to inflict massive internal bleeding to her. The two were abandoned on the side of the road. About two weeks later, the woman died of her injuries.
Amid outrage over her death, protests erupted across India, and the country is still grappling with how to confront what activists call a national epidemic of sexual violence against women. The "Nirbhaya" case prompted the Indian government to increase prison time for convicted rapists, and fast-track their trials.
But last month, new and similarly horrific rape cases grabbed headlines and once again sparked nationwide protests.
In the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, police say a group of men deflated a 27-year-old woman's tires, posed as good Samaritans to trick her — and then gang-raped and killed her. Authorities discovered her burnt body in a wooded area the next day. The suspects were arrested, but before they could be charged, police shot them dead in what many suspect was an extrajudicial killing, fueled by national anger.
Meanwhile, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, a 23-year-old woman on her way to testify at court against her alleged rapist was set on fire by a gang of men, allegedly including her man she had accused. She also died of her injuries.
The brutality of these cases has renewed attention on the 2012 "Nirbhaya" case.
Indian media coverage of rape tends to focus on sensational details of cases in which victims are urban, educated professionals who get attacked by strangers. But experts say those cases are very rare. Most sexual assaults in the country are believed to happen within families. Most victims are thought to be poor, lower-caste women who know their attackers.
In 2017, the most recent year for which data was available, there were nearly 33,000 cases of rape reported in India, according to national crime statistics. That's a quarter of the number of rapes reported in the United States that year, which has a quarter of India's population.
Most rape is believed to go unreported in India. According to the National Family Health Survey, 80 percent of women who experience sexual violence never tell anyone about it.
Executions are legal in India but rare. The last time the country used capital punishment in a rape and murder case was 15 years ago. The country has carried out three executions since then, in terrorism cases. The last execution in the country happened in 2015.
The mother of the "Nirbhaya" victim told reporters outside the Delhi court Tuesday that it is the appropriate punishment for the four men convicted in her daughter's death.
"My daughter has got justice," said the mother. "Execution of the four convicts will empower the women of the country. This decision will strengthen the trust of people in the judicial system."
The four men scheduled to be executed later this month were convicted and sentenced back in 2013 and have been detained since then. A fifth man convicted in connection with the killing died in prison. A sixth man, who was a minor at the time of the attack, was sentenced to the maximum penalty of three years in a reform facility.


npr--2020-01-07--Border Screenings Spark Travel Fears For Iranian Americans Amid Rising Tensions

Iranian Americans say they are scared to travel , and some are dropping international trips after U.S. citizens of Iranian descent were held by U.S. immigration agents at the Canadian border over the weekend .
Immigrant advocates say some Iranian Americans are concerned about being unfairly targeted by Customs and Border Protection amid escalating tensions between Iran and the United States .
`` I 've heard from people who are saying they 're going to cancel their vacations , '' said Jamal Abdi , president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington , D.C .
The organization asked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border crossings , to investigate the incident .
`` They had planned to travel abroad or , you know , leave the country for spring break .
And people are already saying we 're going to cancel those trips because we do n't know what we 're supposed to do . ''
As many as 200 Iranian Americans were held at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine , Wash. , over the weekend , some for as long as 12 hours , according to legal aid groups .
Immigrant advocates also report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heightened scrutiny , albeit on a smaller scale , at airports and border crossings across the country in recent days .
Homeland Security officials are on high alert after Iran vowed to avenge the U.S. airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , a top Iranian commander .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there is enhanced security at ports of entry , but the agency says there is no `` directive '' from headquarters to detain Iranian Americans because of their country of origin .
Journalist and historian John Ghazvinian , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says he was pulled aside for additional screening after landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York over the weekend .
`` Well , just landed at JFK and — no surprise — got taken to the special side room and got asked ( among other things ) how I feel about the situation with Iran , '' he wrote on Twitter .
But Ghazvinian , who is the interim director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania , says that his interaction with the customs officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that she dropped the questioning after he said it seemed `` political . ''
Customs and Border Protection said there were long wait times at the border crossing north of Seattle because of low staffing levels on a holiday weekend , which could have led to longer secondary screenings of travelers flagged by immigration officers .
The travelers were eventually released , and the agency disputes the characterization that they were `` detained . ''
Rep. Pramila Jayapal , a Democrat from Seattle , says the agency is playing semantics .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to leave .
So whether you want to call that detention or something else is up to you .
But the core fact of the matter remains , '' Jayapal said .
`` This seemed to be a directive to pull aside anybody of Iranian American descent . ''
`` We 're here having to decide whether we believe our lying eyes , or we believe what is being said on Twitter by this federal agency , '' Abdi said .
He points out that Iranian Americans are still living with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban does not apply to U.S. citizens or green card holders , but it does prevent many of their Iranian parents and relatives from visiting .
`` There 's all this uncertainty already because of those policies , '' Abdi said .
`` And what happened this past weekend kind of retriggered those fears for people who are , we 're already not certain about their status coming into the country , coming and leaving . ''
Iranian Americans who were held at the border crossing in Washington state over the weekend say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were detained .
`` As soon as they realized that we were born in Iran , they lead us to the office , and they held us there for five hours , '' said Negah Hekmati , who was detained along with her family and friends late Saturday night as they returned from skiing and visiting family in Canada .
Normally , Hekmati says , her family sails through the border checkpoint between Vancouver and her home near Seattle .
They are all U.S. citizens .
And they 're pre-screened by immigration authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to skip long lines at the port of entry .
But this trip was very different .
At a press conference Monday , Hekmati described how immigration authorities took her family 's car keys and U.S. passports .
She says officers questioned them extensively — about her social media accounts and her husband 's time in the Iranian military .
Hekmati says her kids were terrified .
`` They were very scared that if they go to sleep , they may take us to the jail and they wake up and see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Her daughter urged her not to speak Farsi , Hekmati said , so that immigration authorities would be less likely to arrest her .
Hekmati says that 's why she decided to speak out .
`` For me , as an immigrant , I 'm used to it , unfortunately .
But for my kids , it should n't be OK , '' she said .
`` I 'm still proud of being Iranian as well as U.S. citizens .
I 'm proud of both .
But I need to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well . ''

Border Screenings Spark Travel Fears For Iranian Americans Amid Rising Tensions
Enlarge this image toggle caption Elaine Thompson/AP Elaine Thompson/AP
Iranian Americans say they are scared to travel, and some are dropping international trips after U.S. citizens of Iranian descent were held by U.S. immigration agents at the Canadian border over the weekend.
Immigrant advocates say some Iranian Americans are concerned about being unfairly targeted by Customs and Border Protection amid escalating tensions between Iran and the United States.
"I've heard from people who are saying they're going to cancel their vacations," said Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, D.C. The organization asked the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees border crossings, to investigate the incident.
"They had planned to travel abroad or, you know, leave the country for spring break. And people are already saying we're going to cancel those trips because we don't know what we're supposed to do."
As many as 200 Iranian Americans were held at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Wash., over the weekend, some for as long as 12 hours, according to legal aid groups.
Immigrant advocates also report that Iranian Americans have been subject to heightened scrutiny, albeit on a smaller scale, at airports and border crossings across the country in recent days.
Homeland Security officials are on high alert after Iran vowed to avenge the U.S. airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there is enhanced security at ports of entry, but the agency says there is no "directive" from headquarters to detain Iranian Americans because of their country of origin.
Journalist and historian John Ghazvinian, a U.S. citizen who was born in Iran, says he was pulled aside for additional screening after landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York over the weekend.
"Well, just landed at JFK and — no surprise — got taken to the special side room and got asked (among other things) how I feel about the situation with Iran," he wrote on Twitter.
But Ghazvinian, who is the interim director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania, says that his interaction with the customs officer in New York was brief and cordial and that she dropped the questioning after he said it seemed "political."
Customs and Border Protection said there were long wait times at the border crossing north of Seattle because of low staffing levels on a holiday weekend, which could have led to longer secondary screenings of travelers flagged by immigration officers. The travelers were eventually released, and the agency disputes the characterization that they were "detained."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Seattle, says the agency is playing semantics.
"It was very lengthy screening with no ability to leave. So whether you want to call that detention or something else is up to you. But the core fact of the matter remains," Jayapal said. "This seemed to be a directive to pull aside anybody of Iranian American descent."
Abdi says the Iranian American community doesn't trust immigration authorities.
"We're here having to decide whether we believe our lying eyes, or we believe what is being said on Twitter by this federal agency," Abdi said.
He points out that Iranian Americans are still living with the Trump administration's travel ban. The ban does not apply to U.S. citizens or green card holders, but it does prevent many of their Iranian parents and relatives from visiting.
"There's all this uncertainty already because of those policies," Abdi said. "And what happened this past weekend kind of retriggered those fears for people who are, we're already not certain about their status coming into the country, coming and leaving."
Iranian Americans who were held at the border crossing in Washington state over the weekend say there's no doubt about why they were detained.
"As soon as they realized that we were born in Iran, they lead us to the office, and they held us there for five hours," said Negah Hekmati, who was detained along with her family and friends late Saturday night as they returned from skiing and visiting family in Canada.
Normally, Hekmati says, her family sails through the border checkpoint between Vancouver and her home near Seattle. They are all U.S. citizens. And they're pre-screened by immigration authorities for a trusted traveler card that allows them to skip long lines at the port of entry.
But this trip was very different.
At a press conference Monday, Hekmati described how immigration authorities took her family's car keys and U.S. passports. She says officers questioned them extensively — about her social media accounts and her husband's time in the Iranian military. Hekmati says her kids were terrified.
"They were very scared that if they go to sleep, they may take us to the jail and they wake up and see we're not there," she said. Her daughter urged her not to speak Farsi, Hekmati said, so that immigration authorities would be less likely to arrest her.
Hekmati says that's why she decided to speak out.
"For me, as an immigrant, I'm used to it, unfortunately. But for my kids, it shouldn't be OK," she said. "I'm still proud of being Iranian as well as U.S. citizens. I'm proud of both. But I need to show my kids to be proud of both as well."


npr--2020-01-07--Elizabeth Wurtzel, Who Stirred Conversation With 'Prozac Nation,' Dies At 52

Elizabeth Wurtzel , Who Stirred Conversation With 'Prozac Nation , ' Dies At 52 Elizabeth Wurtzel , whose 1994 memoir Prozac Nation became a mainstay on bestseller lists and inspired a national conversation about clinical depression , has died at the age of 52 .
David Lipsky , a friend of Wurtzel , confirmed to NPR that the writer died Tuesday of an aggressive case of breast cancer at a hospital in Manhattan .
The news comes as a blow to Wurtzel 's many readers , who were introduced to her brash , unapologetic style with Prozac Nation , published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The memoir traced her struggles with depression , growing up in a fractured family and spending a rocky tenure studying at Harvard — and in the process , it earned Wurtzel a raft of fans and critics , almost in equal measure .
But as the unapologetic writer would be the first to tell you , she embraced the book 's complicated reception , which can be neatly encapsulated by a New York Times review at the time that described it as `` wrenching and comical , '' `` self-indulgent and self-aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joan Didion while still in need of `` some strict editing . ''
That did n't particularly faze Wurtzel , who acknowledged in a 2018 piece announcing her breast cancer diagnosis that `` I was early for history . ''
`` I was on Prozac when it was still called fluoxetine .
I wrote a twentynothing memoir when there was no such thing .
I got addicted to snorting Ritalin before there was Adderall , '' she wrote in The Guardian .
`` I was a riot girl , I was a do-me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world the finger on the cover of my second book . ''
And she 's not wrong about that timing .
The widespread success in sales of Wurtzel 's memoir helped inspire a publishing trend that has seen a spate of popular memoirs from other young writers continuing through the present day .
Wurtzel followed up Prozac Nation with an essay collection in the late 1990s titled Bitch : In Praise of Difficult Women — whose cover did indeed feature her topless , flipping off the reader .
Then came another memoir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time focusing on her plunge into drug addiction .
She also wrote numerous articles for The Wall Street Journal , Elle , New York magazine and other publications .
`` For a certain kind of young writer — particularly young , female writer in the 1990s — Elizabeth Wurtzel was exactly who you wanted to be and exactly who you were afraid to be , '' Meghan Daum , a prolific author and essayist in her own right , tells NPR .
`` She was writing about herself .
She was doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting and compelling , but it also got her labeled 'confessional . '
And I think for a lot of us , that was something that we wanted to avoid even as we were writing about ourselves , '' Daum adds .
`` So she was both a role model and a cautionary tale . ''
For Wurtzel , at least , that liminal space between exhilarating and alarming was comfortable .
So , when it came time to publicly speak about her breast cancer in 2018 , her broader point in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'd better save your sorries — whether you 're discussing her books or her medical condition .
`` Sorry for what ?
I 'm not sorry about anything .
I was never sorry when I said I was .
Apologies are a courtesy , '' she wrote .
`` I love to argue .
I am in it for the headache .
I do n't need you to be on my side — I 'm on my side . ''

Elizabeth Wurtzel, Who Stirred Conversation With 'Prozac Nation,' Dies At 52
Enlarge this image toggle caption Neville Elder/Corbis via Getty Images Neville Elder/Corbis via Getty Images
Updated at 2:15 p.m. ET
Elizabeth Wurtzel, whose 1994 memoir Prozac Nation became a mainstay on bestseller lists and inspired a national conversation about clinical depression, has died at the age of 52. David Lipsky, a friend of Wurtzel, confirmed to NPR that the writer died Tuesday of an aggressive case of breast cancer at a hospital in Manhattan.
The news comes as a blow to Wurtzel's many readers, who were introduced to her brash, unapologetic style with Prozac Nation, published while she was still in her mid-20s. The memoir traced her struggles with depression, growing up in a fractured family and spending a rocky tenure studying at Harvard — and in the process, it earned Wurtzel a raft of fans and critics, almost in equal measure.
But as the unapologetic writer would be the first to tell you, she embraced the book's complicated reception, which can be neatly encapsulated by a New York Times review at the time that described it as "wrenching and comical," "self-indulgent and self-aware" — redolent of Bob Dylan and Joan Didion while still in need of "some strict editing."
That didn't particularly faze Wurtzel, who acknowledged in a 2018 piece announcing her breast cancer diagnosis that "I was early for history."
"I was on Prozac when it was still called fluoxetine. I wrote a twentynothing memoir when there was no such thing. I got addicted to snorting Ritalin before there was Adderall," she wrote in The Guardian. "I was a riot girl, I was a do-me feminist, and I posed topless giving the world the finger on the cover of my second book."
And she's not wrong about that timing. The widespread success in sales of Wurtzel's memoir helped inspire a publishing trend that has seen a spate of popular memoirs from other young writers continuing through the present day.
Wurtzel followed up Prozac Nation with an essay collection in the late 1990s titled Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women — whose cover did indeed feature her topless, flipping off the reader. Then came another memoir, More, Now, Again, this time focusing on her plunge into drug addiction.
She also wrote numerous articles for The Wall Street Journal, Elle, New York magazine and other publications.
Opinion Rehab Nation: The Only Way to Say You're Sorry Rehab Nation: The Only Way to Say You're Sorry Listen
"For a certain kind of young writer — particularly young, female writer in the 1990s — Elizabeth Wurtzel was exactly who you wanted to be and exactly who you were afraid to be," Meghan Daum, a prolific author and essayist in her own right, tells NPR.
"She was writing about herself. She was doing so in a way that was really interesting and compelling, but it also got her labeled 'confessional.' And I think for a lot of us, that was something that we wanted to avoid even as we were writing about ourselves," Daum adds. "So she was both a role model and a cautionary tale."
For Wurtzel, at least, that liminal space between exhilarating and alarming was comfortable. So, when it came time to publicly speak about her breast cancer in 2018, her broader point in that piece was a familiar one: You'd better save your sorries — whether you're discussing her books or her medical condition.
"Sorry for what? I'm not sorry about anything. I was never sorry when I said I was. Apologies are a courtesy," she wrote. "I love to argue. I am in it for the headache. I don't need you to be on my side — I'm on my side."
NPR's Rose Friedman contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-07--Trump, Pompeo, Esper Defend Killing Of Soleimani; Iranians Vow Revenge

President Trump and his top deputies offered a full-throated defense on Tuesday of the American strike against Iran 's top foreign legion commander , stressing what they called the urgent danger of an attack he had been plotting .
The killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani last week has ratcheted up tensions between Tehran and Washington , prompting vows of retaliatory strikes .
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday that the attack Soleimani was planning against Americans or U.S. installations was a matter of `` days '' away , although there were few details about who , what , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense secretary , his colleagues and the president all said they believed they had done their duty to protect Americans and now Iran has an opening to step back from violence and opt for a return to the negotiating table .
`` We are prepared to have this discussion with them , but we are just as prepared to deliver a forceful response , '' Esper said in a news conference at the Pentagon .
The Defense Department is sending thousands more troops to the Middle East as well as Air Force bombers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region have been placed on high alert and normal operations — including against the Islamic State — have been paused .
Americans have been urged to leave Iraq .
All the same , and notwithstanding calls within Iraq for American forces to leave and vows by Iran for revenge , Trump and administration leaders made clear they 're standing by their decision to kill Soleimani .
`` It was the right decision .
We got it right , '' Pompeo told reporters during a briefing at the State Department .
He added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our strategy in how to counter the threat of malign activity from Iran more broadly . ''
The biggest change in tune on Tuesday was over the prospective reaction by American forces to the response that Iran has vowed .
Trump had threatened to attack 52 sites inside Iran , including religiously or culturally significant ones , as a way to try to constrain Iranian retaliation .
Trump and some supporters do n't only want American forces to defend , for example , an embassy against an attack .
They also want the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an embassy farther afield in the Middle East with a strike deep inside Iran , either against a culturally important target or infrastructure such as an oil refinery .
But Pompeo and Esper both responded to questions about that on Tuesday by stating that American forces would obey the laws of armed conflict , which preclude that kind of targeting .
`` Every target that 's being reviewed , every effort that 's being made , will always be conducted inside the international laws of war , '' Pompeo said .
Esper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I 'm fully confident ... the commander-in-chief is not going to give us an illegal order . ''
Trump tried to take a similar line with reporters at the White House but still make it clear that he is prepared to attack targets inside the Islamic Republic .
`` If that 's what the law is , I like to obey the law , '' Trump said .
`` But think of it : They kill our people , they blow up our people , and then we have to be very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm OK with it .
It 's OK with me .
I will say this : If Iran does anything that they should n't be doing , they 're going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly . ''
As NPR reported on Monday , the U.S. can not legally target cultural sites , according to the Hague Convention the country signed in 1954 , which mandates `` refraining from any act of hostility '' directed against cultural property .
Trump also sought to square what he calls his careerlong opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his current orders to deepen the U.S. military presence in the region — and his threats to sanction Iraq if it tries to eject American forces .
The United States should get out of Iraq , he argued , but not now and not like this .
`` At some point we want to get out , '' he said .
`` But this is n't the right point .
The other thing is , if we do get out , we 've spent a tremendous amount of money on building airports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have in the world .
And we want to be reimbursed to the various costs that we have had .
They 're very significant ... We do n't want to be there forever . ''
The president emphasized how important Iraq is as a platform from which the United States can combat Iran .
If Baghdad tries to force out American troops now , Trump said , `` I think it 's the worst thing that can happen to Iraq .
If we leave , that would mean that Iran would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in Iraq do not want to see Iran running the country . ''
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told NPR in an interview Tuesday that the U.S. `` will pay '' for the assassination of Soleimani as well as Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis .
Zarif called the drone strike an act of `` both terrorism and war . ''
In that same interview , Zarif told NPR 's Mary Louise Kelly in Tehran that the U.S. failed to issue him a visa so he could attend a gathering of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pompeo was asked about that during his remarks but said he would not comment on visa matters .
The secretary of state did seek to pour cold water on Zarif 's claim that at the time of his death , Soleimani was traveling to Baghdad on a diplomatic mission .
`` Anybody here believe that ? ''
Pompeo asked sarcastically .
`` Zarif is a propagandist of the first order , '' he added .
`` It 's not new , we 've heard these same lies before .
It 's fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slated to get closed-door briefing on Iran from top administration officials on Wednesday .
Pompeo is expected to be joined by CIA Director Gina Haspel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley .
The session comes as House Democrats are mulling ways to limit the president 's authority to order military action in Iran unilaterally .
At Tuesday 's briefing , Pompeo was also asked about his decision to stay on as secretary of state instead of leaving his post , as he was widely expected to , in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas .
`` No real news there .
I 've said that I 'm going to stay serving as secretary of state so long as President Trump shall have me , '' Pompeo said .
He added : `` You can accuse me of being inconsistent elsewise , but not on that one . ''

Trump, Pompeo, Esper Defend Killing Of Soleimani; Iranians Vow Revenge
Enlarge this image toggle caption dpa Picture-Alliance via Getty Images dpa Picture-Alliance via Getty Images
Updated at 4:55 p.m. ET
President Trump and his top deputies offered a full-throated defense on Tuesday of the American strike against Iran's top foreign legion commander, stressing what they called the urgent danger of an attack he had been plotting.
The killing of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani last week has ratcheted up tensions between Tehran and Washington, prompting vows of retaliatory strikes.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday that the attack Soleimani was planning against Americans or U.S. installations was a matter of "days" away, although there were few details about who, what, how and precisely when.
But the defense secretary, his colleagues and the president all said they believed they had done their duty to protect Americans and now Iran has an opening to step back from violence and opt for a return to the negotiating table.
"We are prepared to have this discussion with them, but we are just as prepared to deliver a forceful response," Esper said in a news conference at the Pentagon.
The Defense Department is sending thousands more troops to the Middle East as well as Air Force bombers and naval warships. American installations across the region have been placed on high alert and normal operations — including against the Islamic State — have been paused. Americans have been urged to leave Iraq.
All the same, and notwithstanding calls within Iraq for American forces to leave and vows by Iran for revenge, Trump and administration leaders made clear they're standing by their decision to kill Soleimani.
"It was the right decision. We got it right," Pompeo told reporters during a briefing at the State Department. He added that the strike "fit perfectly within our strategy in how to counter the threat of malign activity from Iran more broadly."
A step back from sensitive targets
The biggest change in tune on Tuesday was over the prospective reaction by American forces to the response that Iran has vowed.
Trump had threatened to attack 52 sites inside Iran, including religiously or culturally significant ones, as a way to try to constrain Iranian retaliation.
Trump and some supporters don't only want American forces to defend, for example, an embassy against an attack. They also want the United States to respond to an attack on an embassy farther afield in the Middle East with a strike deep inside Iran, either against a culturally important target or infrastructure such as an oil refinery.
But Pompeo and Esper both responded to questions about that on Tuesday by stating that American forces would obey the laws of armed conflict, which preclude that kind of targeting.
"Every target that's being reviewed, every effort that's being made, will always be conducted inside the international laws of war," Pompeo said.
Esper, for his part, said, "I'm fully confident ... the commander-in-chief is not going to give us an illegal order."
Trump tried to take a similar line with reporters at the White House but still make it clear that he is prepared to attack targets inside the Islamic Republic.
"If that's what the law is, I like to obey the law," Trump said. "But think of it: They kill our people, they blow up our people, and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK with me. I will say this: If Iran does anything that they shouldn't be doing, they're going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly."
As NPR reported on Monday, the U.S. cannot legally target cultural sites, according to the Hague Convention the country signed in 1954, which mandates "refraining from any act of hostility" directed against cultural property.
Strategic vision for the Middle East
Trump also sought to square what he calls his careerlong opposition to American operations in the Middle East with his current orders to deepen the U.S. military presence in the region — and his threats to sanction Iraq if it tries to eject American forces.
The United States should get out of Iraq, he argued, but not now and not like this.
"At some point we want to get out," he said. "But this isn't the right point. The other thing is, if we do get out, we've spent a tremendous amount of money on building airports and building one of the largest embassies we have in the world. And we want to be reimbursed to the various costs that we have had. They're very significant ... We don't want to be there forever."
The president emphasized how important Iraq is as a platform from which the United States can combat Iran.
If Baghdad tries to force out American troops now, Trump said, "I think it's the worst thing that can happen to Iraq. If we leave, that would mean that Iran would have a much bigger foothold, and the people in Iraq do not want to see Iran running the country."
Iran vows vengeance
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told NPR in an interview Tuesday that the U.S. "will pay" for the assassination of Soleimani as well as Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Zarif called the drone strike an act of "both terrorism and war."
In that same interview, Zarif told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly in Tehran that the U.S. failed to issue him a visa so he could attend a gathering of the U.N. Security Council in New York.
Pompeo was asked about that during his remarks but said he would not comment on visa matters. The secretary of state did seek to pour cold water on Zarif's claim that at the time of his death, Soleimani was traveling to Baghdad on a diplomatic mission.
"Anybody here believe that?" Pompeo asked sarcastically.
"Zarif is a propagandist of the first order," he added. "It's not new, we've heard these same lies before. It's fundamentally false."
Briefing set for lawmakers
Members of Congress are slated to get closed-door briefing on Iran from top administration officials on Wednesday.
Pompeo is expected to be joined by CIA Director Gina Haspel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. The session comes as House Democrats are mulling ways to limit the president's authority to order military action in Iran unilaterally.
At Tuesday's briefing, Pompeo was also asked about his decision to stay on as secretary of state instead of leaving his post, as he was widely expected to, in order to pursue an open Senate seat in Kansas.
"No real news there. I've said that I'm going to stay serving as secretary of state so long as President Trump shall have me," Pompeo said.
He added: "You can accuse me of being inconsistent elsewise, but not on that one."