usatoday--2020-01-14--New poll shows Joe Biden in the lead ahead of Iowa caucuses, but many may still change their minds

Days after Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topped the Des Moines Register Iowa Poll , a new Monmouth University poll shows former Vice President Joe Biden leading the pack in the first-in-the-nation caucus state .
The new poll confirms what polling has show for weeks : a tight race between the four contenders Biden , Sanders , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
The poll , released by Monmouth University on Monday , showed Biden ahead with 24 % among likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers .
The other three are neck and neck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 17 % and Warren at 15 % support .
All other candidates registered support in the single digits .
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was just behind the top tier with 8 % .
Businessman Tom Steyer stood at 4 % , entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 3 % and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard at 2 % .
Other candidates received less than 1 % , and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was excluded from the poll because he is skipping early state voting .
Democratic debate No .
7 : What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate 2020 candidates on the issues : Here 's where they stand on health care , gun control , immigration and more New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was included in the poll , but dropped out of the race on Monday .
He received 4 % support .
Monmouth calculated results with Booker 's supporters reassigned to their second choice , and the new standing is as follows : Biden with 25 % , Sanders with 18 % , Buttigieg with 17 , Warren with 16 % and Klobuchar with 9 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the recent Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll that had Sanders leading the pack for the first time in the 2020 primary race .
In that survey , Sanders saw 20 % support , Warren was at 17 % , Buttigieg at 16 % and Biden at 15 % .
The results highlight the fluidity of the top standings , even as the Iowa caucus approaches in just three weeks .
Monmouth found that while 43 % of survey respondents said they were certain about their candidate pick , 13 % were open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a low possibility they would do so .
Another 39 % said there is a moderate or high possibility that they will change their minds .
'It 's with a full heart that I share this news ' : Cory Booker drops out of 2020 race Caucusgoers were asked who their second-choice candidate would be , as the Iowa caucus process gives voters a chance to caucus for a second choice if their first choice receives less than 15 % support in the first alignment .
Warren had the strongest support as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , followed by Buttigieg at 15 % , Sanders at 14 % , Biden at 10 % and Klobuchar at 10 % .
Since 15 % is the threshold to be eligible for Iowa 's convention delegates , Monmouth asked caucusgoers to choose between candidates who currently stood at 15 % or higher in its poll .
Asked to pick between Biden , Sanders , Buttigieg and Warren , 28 % of survey respondents chose Biden ; 24 % picked Sanders ; 25 % picked Buttigieg ; and 16 % went to Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Jan. 9-12 , and results have a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points .

New poll shows Joe Biden in the lead ahead of Iowa caucuses, but many may still change their minds
Show Caption Hide Caption Iowa caucus: Just how much influence does it have on the primary? The Iowa caucus is sure to be competitive this year. But what makes caucuses different from primaries? Just the FAQs
Days after Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topped the Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, a new Monmouth University poll shows former Vice President Joe Biden leading the pack in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
The new poll confirms what polling has show for weeks: a tight race between the four contenders Biden, Sanders, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The poll, released by Monmouth University on Monday, showed Biden ahead with 24% among likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers. The other three are neck and neck with Sanders at 18%, Buttigieg at 17% and Warren at 15% support.
All other candidates registered support in the single digits. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was just behind the top tier with 8%. Businessman Tom Steyer stood at 4%, entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 3% and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard at 2%. Other candidates received less than 1%, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was excluded from the poll because he is skipping early state voting.
Democratic debate No. 7: What you need to know for the January debate
2020 candidates on the issues: Here's where they stand on health care, gun control, immigration and more
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was included in the poll, but dropped out of the race on Monday. He received 4% support. Monmouth calculated results with Booker's supporters reassigned to their second choice, and the new standing is as follows: Biden with 25%, Sanders with 18%, Buttigieg with 17, Warren with 16% and Klobuchar with 9%.
The Monmouth poll results stand in contrast to the recent Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll that had Sanders leading the pack for the first time in the 2020 primary race. In that survey, Sanders saw 20% support, Warren was at 17%, Buttigieg at 16% and Biden at 15%.
The results highlight the fluidity of the top standings, even as the Iowa caucus approaches in just three weeks. Monmouth found that while 43% of survey respondents said they were certain about their candidate pick, 13% were open to changing their minds, but with only a low possibility they would do so. Another 39% said there is a moderate or high possibility that they will change their minds.
'It's with a full heart that I share this news': Cory Booker drops out of 2020 race
Caucusgoers were asked who their second-choice candidate would be, as the Iowa caucus process gives voters a chance to caucus for a second choice if their first choice receives less than 15% support in the first alignment.
Warren had the strongest support as a second-choice candidate, with 23%, followed by Buttigieg at 15%, Sanders at 14%, Biden at 10% and Klobuchar at 10%.
Since 15% is the threshold to be eligible for Iowa's convention delegates, Monmouth asked caucusgoers to choose between candidates who currently stood at 15% or higher in its poll. Asked to pick between Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren, 28% of survey respondents chose Biden; 24% picked Sanders; 25% picked Buttigieg; and 16% went to Warren.
Monmouth polled 405 likely Democratic caucusgoers from Jan. 9-12, and results have a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.


usatoday--2020-01-15--Trump impeachment focus to shift to Senate as House prepares to send articles

WASHINGTON – The House is set to vote Wednesday afternoon to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate , where opening arguments are expected Tuesday in only the third impeachment trial of a president in history .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , delayed sending the articles after the House approved them Dec. 18 to learn more about how the trial would work .
Pelosi said she will identify the lawmakers called managers who will prosecute the case at 10 a.m. Trump is charged with obstruction of Congress and abuse of power .
Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote would be in the afternoon , after 10 minutes of debate .
Hoyer said members would formally walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate either late Wednesday or on Thursday .
After receiving the articles , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said the Senate will complete `` housekeeping '' measures , including swearing in senators and bringing over Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to preside .
McConnell said the trial would likely begin Tuesday .
Trump impeachment : What is an impeachment manager and what do they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusing him of abusing the power of his office by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , while Trump withheld a White House meeting and $ 391 million in military aid from Ukraine .
The House also accused Trump of obstructing Congress by directing aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony , although some officials did testify .
Trump and congressional Republicans argued he had the authority to set foreign policy and was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exonerated at the trial .
Trump will become only the third president tried in the Senate , after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 .
Both were not convicted and removed from office .
A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to convict Trump , which is considered unlikely because Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47 in the Senate .
But a simple majority will settle contentious issues such as whether to subpoena witnesses or documents for new information .
Trump has called at various times for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arguments or hold a full trial with witnesses .
But McConnell said `` there is little to no sentiment '' among Senate Republicans to simply dismiss the charges .
“ Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the arguments , '' McConnell said .
The trial will open with statements from House managers and White House lawyers defending Trump .
Then senators can submit written questions through Roberts to both sides .
After those steps , Democrats and a handful of key Republicans have urged votes on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial ?
: Senate impeachment trial for Trump to begin Jan. 21 , McConnell says Former national security adviser John Bolton , who declined an invitation to testify in the House inquiry , said he would be willing to testify under subpoena in the Senate trial .
But Trump said he might block Bolton 's testimony under executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of advice presidents get from top aides .
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , urged testimony from four witnesses , including Bolton and acting White House Chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least four Republicans to join them , to reach a majority of 51 senators , to approve subpoenas .
If Democrats win approval of their witnesses , Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have suggested calling Hunter Biden .
“ I think it 's certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses , ” McConnell said .
“ So when you get to that issue , I ca n't imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call would be called.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that Trump 's State of the Union speech on Feb. 4 would probably occur during the trial .
Former President Bill Clinton delivered a State of the Union speech during his impeachment trial .
“ I would expect no reason to believe that same thing wouldn ’ t happen , '' Blunt said .
Impeachment impact : Here 's how partisan wrath over Trump 's impeachment changed the future of 2 lawmakers

Christal Hayes, Nicholas Wu and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY

House sends impeachment of President Trump to Senate for trial, names 7 'managers' to prosecute case
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment managers voted on by House to send articles of impeachment The House of Rep. voted on a formal resolution to appoint impeachment managers to appropriate funds for the trial. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the resolution sending the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for trial, and the lawmakers called managers who will prosecute the case carried the document Wednesday across the Capitol to the Senate.
“Today we will make history,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “We will cross a threshold in history, delivering articles of impeachment against the president of the United States for abuse of power and obstruction of the House.”
Pelosi was flanked by the six chairmen who investigated Trump: Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engle, D-N.Y.; Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.; Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.
She was also flanked by the seven managers, who included Schiff and Nadler. The other managers are Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Val Demings, D-Fla.; Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas.
As the managers walked through the Rotunda at the center of the Capitol beneath the dome, the room typically cacophonous with tourists was silent.
The Senate didn’t technically receive the articles, but the secretary of the Senate told the lawmakers to come back Thursday. The managers are expected to read the articles aloud in the Senate at noon on Thursday. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will then be sworn in at 2 p.m. to preside over the trial, and the senators will be sworn in.
"The trial will commence in earnest on Tuesday," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We will pledge to rise above the petty factionalism and do justice for our institutions, for our states and for the nation."
House votes to send impeachment to Senate
The House voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for a trial, and to name the seven lawmakers who will prosecute him.
The House voted 228 to 193 largely along party lines to send the Senate the two articles accusing Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Opening arguments in the trial are expected to begin Tuesday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the impeachment wasn't political, personal or partisan, but patriotic.
"This is as serious it gets for any of us," Pelosi said. "Only the vote to declare war would be something more serious than this."
The managers – seven lawmakers chosen by Pelosi – will serve in a role similar to prosecutors in the trial by presenting the evidence against Trump. A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to convict and remove Trump, which is considered unlikely in the chamber where Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47.
One of the managers, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said the trial is necessary because Trump "gravely abused the power of his office when he strong-armed a foreign government to announce investigations" into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
“He jeopardized our national security," Nadler said. "He did it all for his personal, political gain.”
But Republicans blasted the impeachment and called it unjustified, unfair and entirely political.
“This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who called the impeachment the “fastest, weakest and thinnest” in American history.
Pelosi names 7 'managers' to prosecute case
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday named the lawmakers who will serve as managers in the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.
Pelosi, D-Calif., named as managers Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Val Demings, D-Fla.; Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas.
Pelosi named Schiff the lead manager. All of the managers are lawyers except for Demings, who was Orlando's police chief. Jeffries, the Democratic Caucus chairman, is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Crow was the only manager who doesn't serve on one of the committees that investigated Trump, but he is a former Army Ranger who was a lawyer in private practice.
"Today is an important day," Pelosi said. “The emphasis is making the strongest possible case to protect and defend our Constitution, to seek the truth for the American people.”
Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which participated in the impeachment inquiry, applauded the diversity of the managers and said a larger number would have been “unwieldy.”
”I think they're good people,” said Engel, D-N.Y. “I think this is a diverse group," noting the two first-term lawmakers of Garcia and Crow.
Garcia, one of the first two Hispanic women elected to the House from Texas, said being chosen was a “pleasant surprise.”
“My role will be to present the case to the American people,” said Garcia, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “I know I’ll have a lot of homework,” she said with a smile.
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Trump: impeachment a 'hoax'
Trump at the White House praised his Republican defenders while noting the looming House vote to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate
“They have a hoax going on over there. Let’s take care of it," Trump said during a ceremony announcing a China trade agreement.
He commended House Republicans for voting unanimously against his impeachment.
“What a job you’ve done," Trump said. "I want to thank you all. Really tough. I love that."
US-China trade deal: Details released of 'Phase One' trade agreement, signaling pause in trade war
White House: 'illegitimate impeachment'
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Pelosi revealed she is more focused on politics than the American people with "this sham, illegitimate impeachment."
Grisham accused Pelosi of lying by calling the impeachment urgent and vital to national security because she held on to the articles for nearly a month after the House approved them Dec. 18.
"President Trump has done nothing wrong," Grisham said. "He looks forward to having the due process rights in the Senate that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats denied to him, and expects to be fully exonerated."
House poised to move articles to Senate
The House is set to vote Wednesday afternoon on a resolution to formally appoint managers, appropriating funds for the trial and sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, where opening arguments are expected Tuesday in only the third impeachment trial of a president in history. The articles accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the vote would be in the afternoon, after 10 minutes of debate. Pelosi will sign the resolution at 5 p.m. and have the managers walk it across the Capitol to the Senate after that.
Pelosi delayed sending the articles after the House approved them Dec. 18 to learn more about how the trial would work. Some senators voiced frustration with the delay.
But Pelosi highlighted the amount of new information that has come out since last month when the House passed articles, including evidence released Tuesday from Lev Parnas, a Ukraine-born associate of Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Nadler said the question is whether the Senate will allow the House to introduce the witnesses and documents they say are crucial to prosecute the case.
"This is a test of the Constitution," Nadler said of the accusations that Trump stonewalled the investigation by directing agencies and aides to defy subpoenas for testimony and documents. "The question is: Does the Senate conduct the trial according to Constitution to vindicate the republic or does the Senate participate in the president’s crimes by covering them up?"
The House has sought testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn since last April, but the dispute remains tied up in court. Schiff said lawmakers couldn't wait for court rulings because the president could prevent his own impeachment by stonewalling.
"The whole object of the president's scheme was to cheat in the election, which is the ordinary mechanism for dealing with a corrupt presidency," Schiff said.
After receiving the articles, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Senate will complete "housekeeping" measures Thursday, including swearing in senators and bringing over Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to preside. McConnell said the trial would likely begin Tuesday.
McConnell said Wednesday that House Democrats have "taken a dangerous road" by weaponizing impeachment because they wanted to remove Trump, not because of any dispute over Ukraine policy or military spending. McConnell said any future president could be threatened by impeachment for policy differences with Congress.
"Presidential impeachment may be the gravest process our Constitution contemplates," McConnell said. "It undoes the people’s decision in a national election. Going about it in this subjective, unfair, and rushed way is corrosive to our institutions. It hurts national unity. And it virtually guarantees that future Houses of either party will feel free to impeach any future president they do not like."
Trump impeachment: What is an impeachment manager and what do they do?
House Democrats impeached Trump by accusing him of abusing the power of his office by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while Trump withheld a White House meeting and $391 million in military aid from Ukraine. The House also accused Trump of obstructing Congress by directing aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony, although some officials did testify.
Trump and congressional Republicans argued he had the authority to set foreign policy and was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine. Trump has said he expects to be exonerated at the trial.
Trump will become only the third president tried in the Senate, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both were not convicted and removed from office.
A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to convict Trump, which is considered unlikely because Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47 in the Senate. But a simple majority will settle contentious issues such as whether to subpoena witnesses or documents for new information.
Trump has called at various times for the Senate to either dismiss the charges before the arguments or hold a full trial with witnesses. But McConnell said "there is little to no sentiment" among Senate Republicans to simply dismiss the charges.
“Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the arguments," McConnell said.
Pelosi doubled down on her insistence that witnesses be called after new documents were released Tuesday that show an associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, a man named Lev Parnas, worked to get the Ukraine government to investigate Biden.
"There can be no full & fair trial in the Senate if Leader McConnell blocks the Senate from hearing witnesses and obtaining documents President Trump is covering up," Pelosi said in a Wednesday morning tweet.
There can be no full & fair trial in the Senate if Leader McConnell blocks the Senate from hearing witnesses and obtaining documents President Trump is covering up. #DefendOurDemocracy — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 15, 2020
The trial will open with statements from House managers and White House lawyers defending Trump. Then senators can submit written questions through Roberts to both sides. After those steps, Democrats and a handful of key Republicans have urged votes on whether to call witnesses.
When is the trial?: Senate impeachment trial for Trump to begin Jan. 21, McConnell says
Former national security adviser John Bolton, who declined an invitation to testify in the House inquiry, said he would be willing to testify under subpoena in the Senate trial. But Trump said he might block Bolton's testimony under executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of advice presidents get from top aides.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged testimony from four witnesses, including Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. But Democrats need at least four Republicans to join them, to reach a majority of 51 senators, to approve subpoenas.
If Democrats win approval of their witnesses, Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have suggested calling Hunter Biden.
“I think it's certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses,” McConnell said. “So when you get to that issue, I can't imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call would be called.“
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., noted that Trump's State of the Union speech on Feb. 4 would probably occur during the trial. Former President Bill Clinton delivered a State of the Union speech during his impeachment trial.
“I would expect no reason to believe that same thing wouldn’t happen," Blunt said.
Impeachment impact: Here's how partisan wrath over Trump's impeachment changed the future of 2 lawmakers


usatoday--2020-01-15--Trump, Chinese vice premier to sign 'Phase One' trade deal but details still a mystery

WASHINGTON – The U.S. and China will signal a truce in their nearly two-year trade war when President Donald Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He sign a limited trade agreement at the White House on Wednesday , but what exactly they are agreeing to remains a mystery .
Neither the Trump administration nor Chinese officials have released the text of their “ Phase One ” trade deal , which is the product of months of intense talks between officials in Washington and Beijing .
Few details of the pact have been made public , and many tough issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to give them an unfair advantage over foreign businesses , have been left on the table for further negotiations .
Trump boasts that the deal is “ large and comprehensive ” – a “ big , beautiful monster ” is how he described it last week in Toledo – and contends that it will open the door to further talks that could lead to an even broader agreement .
But analysts question how much the U.S. really got out of the initial agreement , other than a commitment from China to boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by $ 200 billion over the next two years .
“ This is largely a deal on Chinese terms , ” said Robert Daly , director of the Wilson Center ’ s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States .
“ There is nothing we know about this deal that China wouldn ’ t like .
And there is nothing we know about this deal that China probably wouldn ’ t have been willing to do some time ago.
” Based on what little is known about the agreement , Daly said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledges but no real change.
” U.S. concessions : Trump administration drops designation of China as currency manipulator Regardless , Trump and a delegation of Chinese officials will gather in the White House ’ s ornate East Room on Wednesday for a formal signing ceremony .
The Chinese delegation will be led by Liu , who was Beijing ’ s chief negotiator during the talks and will sign the document on behalf of his government .
Liu ’ s participation in the signing ceremony is significant , said Craig Allen , president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group representing American companies that do business in China .
“ He is in charge of the economy ( in China ) , and he is a close confidante of ( Chinese leader ) Xi Jinping , so his signature brings the imprimatur of the Chinese government , ” Allen said .
“ I think it ’ s a very good thing.
” Liu will be accompanied by several Chinese ministers , which suggests the Chinese government is interested in entering a new phase in its trade dealings with the U.S. and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Still , “ the devil is in the details , ” Allen said of the agreement .
“ And we don ’ t know the details.
” Trump and Chinese officials announced the agreement in mid-December , signaling the first signs of a pause in trade tensions that rattled financial markets across the globe .
For months , the two countries hit each other with punishing tariffs in a trade war triggered by U.S. accusations that Beijing steals technology from American companies and pressures them to hand over trade secrets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the height of the dispute , Trump slapped tariffs on more than $ 360 billion in Chinese imports , including farm equipment , motorcycles , mopeds , electronics , plastics and washing machines .
China retaliated with tariffs on more than $ 110 billion worth of U.S. goods , including agriculture products , cars , auto parts , chemicals , whiskey , cigars , clothing and TVs .
As part of the Phase One deal , the U.S. agreed to shelve plans for tariffs on another $ 160 billion in Chinese goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last Dec. 15 .
The U.S. also said it would cut by half the 15 % tariff rate it imposed on $ 120 billion of Chinese goods Sept. 1 .
In return , China agreed to buy an additional $ 32 billion in American agricultural products , including soybeans and other crops , over the next two years , according to U.S. officials .
China also promised to open its financial markets to U.S. companies , address concerns about protecting the intellectual property of American companies doing business there and enact new guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blame game : Senior China adviser : Trump to blame for delays in securing final trade deal , says China has been 'accommodating' China has a long history of failing to buy as many U.S. products as it has promised , Daly said , and even if the Chinese live up to their commitments this time , there remain questions about whether U.S. farmers could produce enough crops to fill their orders .
Trump has said talks will begin immediately for a broader agreement but that it probably would not be finalized until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the issues still on the table will be difficult to resolve and question whether a “ Phase Two ” agreement can be reached at all .
“ If we make significant progress , that would be a very good thing , ” Allen said .
But he added , “ these are very difficult issues .
We have a hard time getting along even with the Canadians .
How are we going to resolve all of these issues with the Chinese ?
” Michael Collins covers the White House .
Reach him @ @ @ @ @

U.S., China sign 'Phase One' trade agreement, signaling pause in trade war
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's tariffs: the good, the bad and the ugly President Trump's 'America First' approach has relied on slapping tariffs on countries, such as China and Mexico, which have led to current trade wars. What is a tariff and how do they work? We explain. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The U.S. and China signed a limited trade deal Wednesday, signaling a pause in the nearly two-year trade war between the world's two largest economies and setting the stage for talks for a broader agreement down the road.
The “Phase One” agreement, the product of months of negotiations between officials in Washington and Beijing, calls for China to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services over the next two years, including another $32 billion in agriculture products.
China also promised not to pressure foreign companies to turn over their intellectual property for the right to do business there and to refrain from devaluing its currency to give its companies an advantage over foreign competitors.
“Today we take a momentous step – one that has never been taken before with China – toward a future of fair and reciprocal trade,” President Donald Trump said in a White House signing ceremony with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He.
The details: What's in Trump's 'Phase One' trade deal between the U.S. and China?
Speaking through a translator, Liu read a message from Chinese President Xi Jinping, who said the deal “is good for China, for the U.S. and for the world."
Trump said he would travel to China soon as the two sides try to negotiate a broader agreement to deal with unresolved issues, such as complaints that China subsidizes its companies to give them an unfair advantage over foreign businesses. A broader deal is not expected to be finalized until after the November election.
Meanwhile, the U.S. will keep in place most of the tariffs it imposed on $360 billion in Chinese products as trade tensions between the two countries escalated over the past 18 months. But Trump said those tariffs could be removed if a broader deal is reached.
The limited agreement signed Wednesday allows Trump to claim a political victory as he faces an impeachment trial in the Senate and gears up for the November election. But analysts question how much the U.S. really got out of the deal.
“This is largely a deal on Chinese terms,” said Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, a non-profit research organization that seeks to promote better U.S.-China relations. “There is nothing we know about this deal that China wouldn’t like. And there is nothing we know about this deal that China probably wouldn’t have been willing to do some time ago.”
U.S. consumers won’t get much of a financial reprieve from the deal, economists say, because while the truce helps consumers avoid the pain of further tariffs, it doesn't erase all the earlier ones.
“The most important element of this deal is what didn't happen: further tariffs," says Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. "The risk of more tariffs isn’t going to materialize, and that’s the biggest gain for Americans.”
Other critics said the deal is only an election-year placeholder designed to push the toughest trade issues beyond Trump's reelection bid.
"All the big trade issues between the U.S. and China remain unaddressed and punted into the future," said David Rothkopf, a senior trade official in President Bill Clinton's administration. "It is a Potemkin Deal, a sham."
How will it affect you?: Americans won’t get a total reprieve after China trade deal as effects of lost factory jobs, pricier goods linger
Trump, however, insisted the agreement is “a transformative deal" and said it would benefit American farmers, manufacturers and other workers who have been hurt by China's unfair trade practices.
Trade pact: Trump, China tout tentative 'Phase One' trade deal, including canceling upcoming tariffs
Trump and Chinese officials announced the agreement in mid-December, signaling the first signs of a pause in trade tensions that rattled financial markets across the globe.
For months, the two countries hit each other with punishing tariffs in a trade war triggered by U.S. accusations that Beijing steals technology from American companies and pressures them to hand over trade secrets so they can do business in China.
At the height of the dispute, Trump set tariffs on more than $360 billion in Chinese imports, including farm equipment, motorcycles, mopeds, electronics, plastics and washing machines. China retaliated with tariffs on more than $110 billion worth of U.S. goods, including agriculture products, cars, auto parts, chemicals, whiskey, cigars, clothing and TVs.
As part of the Phase One deal, the U.S. agreed to shelve plans for tariffs on another $160 billion in Chinese goods that had been set to take effect Dec. 15. The U.S. also said it would cut by half the 15% tariff rate it imposed on $120 billion of Chinese goods Sept. 1.
China promised to buy an additional $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. Roughly $87 billion of that will be in U.S. manufactured goods, including industrial machinery, iron and steel and vehicles.
Another $32 billion of the Chinese purchases will be in agriculture products, such as oil seeds, meat, cereals and cotton; $52 billion will be in U.S. energy goods, including liquefied natural gas, crude oil and other refined products; and $38 billion will be in services such as business travel, financial services and insurance.
China also promised to open its financial markets to U.S. companies, address concerns about protecting the intellectual property of American companies doing business there and enact new guidelines for how it manages its currency.
But analysts remain skeptical.
Most of the agreement involves China making commitments to change its practices on matters such as forced technology transfers and intellectual property protection, but it's unclear how the U.S. can make sure China follows through, said Chad Bown, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C.
There are enforcement mechanisms in the agreement, but no one seems to know how they might be applied if the U.S. believes China is in violation, Bown said.
"There are still a lot of open questions as to how this going to work in practice," he said.
Blame game: Senior China adviser: Trump to blame for delays in securing final trade deal, says China has been 'accommodating'
China has a long history of failing to buy as many U.S. products as it has promised, Daly said, and even if the Chinese live up to their commitments this time, there remain questions about whether U.S. farmers could produce enough crops to fill their orders.
What's more, critics said, the issues still on the table will be difficult to resolve and raise questions about whether a broader agreement can be reached.
“If we make significant progress, that would be a very good thing,” said Craig Allen, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, a nonprofit group representing American companies that do business in China.
But "these are very difficult issues," Allen said. "We have a hard time getting along even with the Canadians. How are we going to resolve all of these issues with the Chinese?”
Contributing: Jessica Menton
U.S. concessions: Trump administration drops designation of China as currency manipulator


usatoday--2020-01-15--The Democratic debate stage was much smaller on the last showdown before voting begins

At the last Democratic debate before voting begins in Iowa , the six candidates had their last chance to argue @ @ @ @ @ to take on Trump .

Smaller, whiter Democratic debate stage before voting begins in Iowa
At the last Democratic debate before voting begins in Iowa, the six candidates had their last chance to argue why they were the one to take on Trump.
Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-15--Democratic candidates flex their Commander-in-Chief potential in final debate before votes

In the final debate before Democratic primary voting begins , six leading candidates make the case for their qualifications to @ @ @

Democratic debate: Candidates tout Commander-in-Chief potential
In the final debate before Democratic primary voting begins, six leading candidates make the case for their qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief,
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-15--Michael Flynn withdraws guilty plea, accuses prosecutors of acting in 'bad faith'

WASHINGTON — Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is withdrawing his guilty plea , accusing federal prosecutors of acting in `` bad faith '' during their investigation .
The move could prolong an already lengthy criminal case that nearly concluded more than a year ago when Flynn 's sentencing hearing collapsed as a federal judge delivered a blistering rebuke of the former Army general .
And it comes a week after prosecutors recommended that Flynn serve up to six months in prison , a reversal from their position a year ago , when they viewed Flynn as a cooperating witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance .
In a 24-page motion filed Tuesday night , Flynn 's attorneys declared his innocence despite pleading guilty twice to making false statements to federal investigators .
Flynn 's defense team , led by conservative lawyer and frequent Fox News commentator Sidney Powell , has accused the government of forcing Flynn to admit to crimes he did not commit and then hiding evidence that would 've exonerated him .
A federal judge has rejected those claims .
Michael Flynn : Feds recommend prison sentence of up to six months for ex-Trump national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged 'false statements ' by their own misrepresentations , deceit , and omissions .
It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn , virtually bankrupted him , and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years , '' according to the motion .
In a tweet Tuesday night , Powell , whom Flynn hired last year , said the government `` acted in bad faith , with vindictiveness , and breached the plea agreement . ''
Last week , prosecutors , who had initially said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , accused him of thwarting their investigation and of failing to accept responsibility .
The government recommended imprisonment `` to promote respect for the law and adequately deter such criminal conduct . ''
Pat Cotter , a former federal prosecutor , said Flynn has `` little to no chance of successfully withdrawing his plea . ''
`` He would have to show that he was somehow misinformed about the terms of the plea or what he was pleading to having done .
Either that or he was not competent when he took his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Add to that Flynn ’ s education , maturity and experience and it seems ridiculous for him to claim he was not fully aware of what he pleaded to . ''
Michael Flynn : Judge rejects former Army general 's claims of a government conspiracy to frame him The process in which plea deals are reached in federal court involved long and detailed questioning under oath , making it difficult for defendants to later argue they were misinformed about the agreement , Cotter said .
Flynn is one of a half-dozen former aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were convicted or pleaded guilty as part of former special counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into Russia 's interference in the 2016 election .
He is scheduled to be sentenced later this month .
Flynn pleaded guilty two years ago to lying to the FBI about his communication with Sergey Kislyak , then the Russian ambassador to the U.S. , in the weeks before Trump took office .
Prosecutors charged that Flynn lied to FBI agents when he told them he did not discuss sanctions against Russia with Kislyak , and when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay a vote on a United Nations Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements .

Kristine Phillips and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Michael Flynn withdraws guilty plea, accuses prosecutors of acting in 'bad faith'
WASHINGTON — Former national security adviser Michael Flynn is withdrawing his guilty plea, accusing federal prosecutors of acting in "bad faith" during their investigation.
The move could prolong an already lengthy criminal case that nearly concluded more than a year ago, when Flynn's sentencing hearing collapsed as a federal judge delivered a blistering rebuke of the former Army general. And it comes a week after prosecutors recommended that Flynn serve up to six months in prison, a reversal from their position a year ago, when they viewed Flynn as a cooperating witness who provided them with "substantial" assistance.
In a 24-page motion filed Tuesday night, Flynn's attorneys declared his innocence even though he pleaded guilty twice to making false statements to federal investigators. Flynn's defense team, led by conservative lawyer and frequent Fox News commentator Sidney Powell, has accused the government of forcing Flynn to admit to crimes he did not commit and then hiding evidence that would've exonerated him. A federal judge has rejected those claims.
Michael Flynn: Feds recommend prison sentence of up to six months for ex-Trump national security adviser
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false statements' by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions. It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn, virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years," according to the motion.
In a tweet Tuesday night, Powell, whom Flynn hired last year, said the government "acted in bad faith, with vindictiveness, and breached the plea agreement."
Last week, prosecutors, who had initially said Flynn should not be sentenced to prison, accused him of thwarting their investigation and of failing to accept responsibility. The government recommended imprisonment "to promote respect for the law and adequately deter such criminal conduct."
Pat Cotter, a former federal prosecutor, said Flynn has "little to no chance of successfully withdrawing his plea."
"He would have to show that he was somehow misinformed about the terms of the plea or what he was pleading to having done. Either that or he was not competent when he took his plea," Cotter said. "Add to that Flynn’s education, maturity and experience and it seems ridiculous for him to claim he was not fully aware of what he pleaded to."
Michael Flynn: Judge rejects former Army general's claims of a government conspiracy to frame him
The process in which plea deals are reached in federal court involved long and detailed questioning under oath, making it difficult for defendants to later argue they were misinformed about the agreement, Cotter said.
Flynn is one of a half-dozen former aides and allies of President Donald Trump who were convicted or pleaded guilty as part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. He is scheduled to be sentenced later this month.
Flynn pleaded guilty two years ago to lying to the FBI about his communication with Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., in the weeks before Trump took office.
Prosecutors charged that Flynn lied to FBI agents when he told them he did not discuss sanctions against Russia with Kislyak, and when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay a vote on a United Nations Security Council resolution critical of Israeli settlements.


usatoday--2020-01-15--Was former Ambassador Yovanovitch being watched in Ukraine? She wants that investigated following ne

WASHINGTON — The Ukraine ambassador ousted by the Donald Trump administration is calling for an investigation into whether she was placed under surveillance by the president 's allies , following the release of new evidence from House committees involved in the impeachment inquiry .
Marie Yovanovitch , who was recalled from her position after she was targeted in what impeachment witnesses described as a `` smear campaign '' by Trump 's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , considers the new evidence `` disturbing , '' according to her lawyer .
The committees released documents they received from a Giuliani associate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
Parnas ' documents included screenshots of WhatsApp messages with Republican candidate for Congress Robert Hyde , in which the two appear to discuss surveillance of Yovanovitch in Ukraine .
`` Needless to say , the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch 's movements for unknown purposes is disturbing , '' Yovanovitch 's lawyer Lawrence Robbins said in a statement on her behalf .
`` We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened , '' Robbins told USA TODAY .
New impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani , pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden The new documents show that in March , Parnas sent Hyde articles critical of Yovanovitch , to which Hyde responded , `` Wow .
ca n't believe Trumo [ sic ] has n't fired this b**** . ''
Hyde sent a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to physically monitor the ambassador , referring to `` the guys over there . ''
Hyde updated Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch 's location in March of 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political puppet , '' Hyde wrote .
`` They will let me know when she 's on the move . ''
`` Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money ... what I was told , '' Hyde also said to Parnas .
The documents also appear to show that Giuliani and Parnas knew Yovanovitch would be removed before it happened last year .
`` He fired her again , '' Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23 .
Parnas responded , `` I pray it happens this time .
I 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reached by CNN , Hyde said that there was `` No effing way '' he was offering to harm Yovanovitch .
He also posted on his campaign Facebook page , dismissing the document release as `` laughable . ''
`` I was never in Kiev , '' he wrote .
`` For them to take some texts my buddy 's and I wrote back to some dweeb we were playing with that we met a few times while we had a few drinks is definitely laughable . ''
Hyde went on to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , `` These are bad people , I 'm out to expose their actions .
Attack me all you want , get the facts first . ''
Trump was impeached by the House on articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress last month.The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate , where the trial is expected to begin Tuesday .
The committee chairmen – Reps. Adam Schiff of California at the Intelligence Committee , Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary , Carolyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Eliot Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president .
Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden , an effort that the new documents show Parnas had a hand in .
House Democrats believe Trump withheld nearly $ 400 million in military aid to Ukraine as leverage for announcing the investigations that would benefit Trump politically .
Trump has defended himself by saying that he was concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he expects to be exonerated in the Senate .
Giuliani previously acknowledged he `` forced '' Yovanovitch out , and Yovanovitch testified behind closed doors in the impeachment investigation that Giuliani amplified false narratives about her , including that she was taking actions to undermine Trump 's administration .
She said people in the Ukrainian government told her Giuliani was in touch with a former Ukrainian prosecutor general , `` and that they had plans , and that they were going to , you know , do things , including to me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Rudy Giuliani discusses role in former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch 's ouster

Was former Ambassador Yovanovitch being watched in Ukraine? She wants that investigated following new evidence
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's Ukraine phone call: U.S. and Ukraine relationship, explained U.S. and Ukraine relations go further back than the now infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. We explain their relationship. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Ukraine ambassador ousted by the Donald Trump administration is calling for an investigation into whether she was placed under surveillance by the president's allies, following the release of new evidence from House committees involved in the impeachment inquiry.
Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her position after she was targeted in what impeachment witnesses described as a "smear campaign" by Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, considers the new evidence "disturbing," according to her lawyer.
The committees released documents they received from a Giuliani associate, Lev Parnas, who faces campaign finance charges. Parnas' documents included screenshots of WhatsApp messages with Republican candidate for Congress Robert Hyde, in which the two appear to discuss surveillance of Yovanovitch in Ukraine.
"Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch's movements for unknown purposes is disturbing," Yovanovitch's lawyer Lawrence Robbins said in a statement on her behalf.
"We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened," Robbins told USA TODAY.
New impeachment evidence:Lev Parnas, associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden
The new documents show that in March, Parnas sent Hyde articles critical of Yovanovitch, to which Hyde responded, "Wow. can't believe Trumo [sic] hasn't fired this b****."
Hyde sent a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to physically monitor the ambassador, referring to "the guys over there." Hyde updated Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch's location in March of 2019.
"They know she's a political puppet," Hyde wrote. "They will let me know when she's on the move."
"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told," Hyde also said to Parnas.
The documents also appear to show that Giuliani and Parnas knew Yovanovitch would be removed before it happened last year.
"He fired her again," Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23. Parnas responded, "I pray it happens this time. I'll call you tomorrow my brother."
Reached by CNN, Hyde said that there was "No effing way" he was offering to harm Yovanovitch. He also posted on his campaign Facebook page, dismissing the document release as "laughable."
"I was never in Kiev," he wrote. "For them to take some texts my buddy's and I wrote back to some dweeb we were playing with that we met a few times while we had a few drinks is definitely laughable."
Hyde went on to offer his email password and phone to investigators, saying, "These are bad people, I'm out to expose their actions. Attack me all you want, get the facts first."
Trump was impeached by the House on articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress last month.The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate, where the trial is expected to begin Tuesday.
The committee chairmen – Reps. Adam Schiff of California at the Intelligence Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary, Carolyn Maloney of New York at Oversight, and Eliot Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president.
Trump is accused of pressuring Ukraine to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, an effort that the new documents show Parnas had a hand in. House Democrats believe Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine as leverage for announcing the investigations that would benefit Trump politically.
Trump has defended himself by saying that he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and said he expects to be exonerated in the Senate.
Giuliani previously acknowledged he "forced" Yovanovitch out, and Yovanovitch testified behind closed doors in the impeachment investigation that Giuliani amplified false narratives about her, including that she was taking actions to undermine Trump's administration.
She said people in the Ukrainian government told her Giuliani was in touch with a former Ukrainian prosecutor general, "and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me."
'I forced her out': Rudy Giuliani discusses role in former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's ouster
Contributing: Nicholas Wu and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-15--New impeachment evidence: Lev Parnas, associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pressed for Ukraine i

WASHINGTON – Evidence unveiled Tuesday in the impeachment proceeding against President Donald Trump shows an associate of his personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , worked to get the Ukraine government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden .
The documents appear to show that Giuliani and Lev Parnas , who faces unrelated campaign finance charges , knew the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine would be removed the day before it happened last year .
The materials , provided to Congress by Parnas ' lawyer on Monday , were released Tuesday by four House committees .
They include Parnas ' handwritten notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vienna , the committees said .
One page refers to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky : `` get Zalensky to annouce that the Biden case will be Investigated . ''
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for withholding military aid and a White House visit in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden .
That included Trump 's personal request to Zelensky for an investigation , made in a July 25 call .
Evidence released Tuesday shows Zelensky was aware of accusations against Biden in May , well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committees .
U.S. officials have discredited accusations about Ukraine and the Bidens as conspiracy theories .
U.S. officials testified in the impeachment inquiry that accusations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election are Russian propaganda , and it wasn ’ t credible Biden would influence policy for financial or personal motives .
A statement from the Democratic chairmen of four committees that investigated Trump said the documents “ demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the President ’ s scheme , but they have been concealed by the President himself.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we already know : the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically , ” the statement said .
The three committees that investigated Trump 's dealings with Ukraine – Foreign Affairs , Intelligence , and Oversight and Reform – submitted the evidence to the Judiciary Committee .
The Judiciary Committee plans to submit it to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment .
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate , where the trial is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine and predicted he would be exonerated at trial .
The committees that led the Ukraine investigation subpoenaed Parnas on Oct. 10 for the evidence , a day after he was arrested .
Parnas won approval from a federal judge in New York to share documents and evidence from devices seized by investigators , including two phones and an iPad .
The committee chairmen – Reps. Adam Schiff of California at the Intelligence Committee , Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary , Carolyn Maloney of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president .
Trump 's lawyers agreed to represent Parnas and an associate before they were arrested The evidence includes an Oct. 2 email showing contact between Jay Sekulow , a member of Trump 's legal team , and former Trump lawyer John Dowd about the topic of `` representation '' for Parnas and one his co-defendants , Igor Fruman .
`` I have discussed the issue of representation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dowd .
`` The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr .
Fruman . ''
The day after that email was sent , the committees said , Dowd wrote to the Intelligence Committee to clarify that he was representing Parnas and Fruman , and that they `` assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump . ''
Those messages were sent a week before Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles International Airport with one-way tickets to Europe .
A federal indictment unsealed in October charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fruman with conspiring to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money to buy influence with U.S. political candidates and campaign committees .
Evidence in the case includes $ 325,000 allegedly contributed under a false name to a political action committee supporting Trump .
Two other associates , David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin , are charged separately with contributing foreign funds to candidates in Nevada and other states in a bid to win support for a planned cannabis business .
Some of the money allegedly was supplied by a Russian businessman who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The four men have pleaded pleaded not guilty .
Parnas tried to arrange meetings between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials Messages translated by the committees showed communication between Parnas and top Ukrainian officials during the campaign to pressure that country to open investigations .
In May , Parnas communicated by instant message with Ivan Bakanov , the head of Ukraine 's Security Service , and Serhiy Shefir , a top aide to Zelensky .
Parnas tried to arrange meetings between the aides and Giuliani .
He sent them articles about Joe Biden and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a New York Times story about Giuliani 's investigative goals in Ukraine .
`` If you are currently on vacation please connect someone else who is close to President Voldomyr [ and ] who can call me back so I can connect them with Giuliani , '' Parnas wrote to Bakanov on May 2 .
Bakanov responded that he `` shared the information he [ Parnas ] provided with Mr. President via the established channel , '' though he did not schedule a meeting with Giuliani .
The Intelligence Committee said those messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations in May .
The evidence includes a photograph of a previously-undisclosed letter from Giuliani to Zelensky on May 10 .
“ In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent , I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday , May 13th , or Tuesday , May 14th , ” Giuliani wrote .
House investigators wrote that the letter “ makes clear that his trip , which he publicly described at the time as an effort to 'meddle in in investigation , was undertaken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump.
” Trump ally claimed U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was under surveillance WhatsApp messages obtained by the Intelligence Committee show Parnas was in contact with Robert F. Hyde , a pro-Trump congressional candidate in Connecticut who claimed to have Yovanovitch under surveillance .
In March , Parnas sent Hyde articles critical of Yovanovitch , to which Hyde responded , `` Wow .
ca n't believe Trumo [ sic ] has n't fired this b**** . ''
Hyde sent a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to surveil the ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , '' and updating Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch 's location .
`` Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money ... what I was told , '' Hyde told Parnas .
Yovanovitch 's attorney Lawrence Robbins called the alleged surveillance `` disturbing '' and called for an investigation .
`` Needless to say , the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch ’ s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing , '' Robbins said in a statement .
Giuliani , Parnas knew ambassador would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee also obtained messages between Giuliani and Parnas about Yovanovitch 's firing — the day before she was told to come back to America .
`` He fired her again , '' Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23 .
Parnas responded , `` I pray it happens this time .
I 'll call you tomorrow my brother . ''
Yovanovitch told House investigators she learned Giuliani was communicating with people in Ukraine in late 2018 .
She said people in the Ukrainian government told her Giuliani was in touch with a former Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had plans , and that they were going to , you know , do things , including to me . ''

Bart Jansen, Nicholas Wu and Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY

New impeachment evidence: Lev Parnas, associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pressed for Ukraine investigation into Joe Biden
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump's Ukraine phone call: U.S. and Ukraine relationship, explained U.S. and Ukraine relations go further back than the now infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. We explain their relationship. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Evidence unveiled Tuesday in the impeachment proceeding against President Donald Trump shows an associate of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, worked to get the Ukraine government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
The documents appear to show that Giuliani and Lev Parnas, who faces unrelated campaign finance charges, knew the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine would be removed the day before it happened last year.
The materials, provided to Congress by Parnas' lawyer on Monday, were released Tuesday by four House committees.
They include Parnas' handwritten notes on stationery from the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Vienna, the committees said. One page refers to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky: "get Zalensky to annouce that the Biden case will be Investigated."
House Democrats impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for withholding military aid and a White House visit in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden. That included Trump's personal request to Zelensky for an investigation, made in a July 25 call.
Evidence released Tuesday shows Zelensky was aware of accusations against Biden in May, well before that call, according to the committees.
U.S. officials have discredited accusations about Ukraine and the Bidens as conspiracy theories. U.S. officials testified in the impeachment inquiry that accusations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election are Russian propaganda, and it wasn’t credible Biden would influence policy for financial or personal motives.
A statement from the Democratic chairmen of four committees that investigated Trump said the documents “demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the President’s scheme, but they have been concealed by the President himself.”
“All of this new evidence confirms what we already know: the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically,” the statement said.
The three committees that investigated Trump's dealings with Ukraine – Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform – submitted the evidence to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee plans to submit it to the Senate along with the articles of impeachment.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on sending the articles to the Senate, where the trial is expected to begin Tuesday.
Giuliani says he gave info to Trump on Yovanovitch Rudy Giuliani says he provided the president with information that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump. AP Domestic
Trump said he was justified in fighting corruption in Ukraine and predicted he would be exonerated at trial.
The committees that led the Ukraine investigation subpoenaed Parnas on Oct. 10 for the evidence, a day after he was arrested. Parnas won approval from a federal judge in New York to share documents and evidence from devices seized by investigators, including two phones and an iPad.
The committee chairmen – Reps. Adam Schiff of California at the Intelligence Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York at Judiciary, Carolyn Maloney of New York at Oversight, and Eliot Engel of New York at Foreign Affairs – had said they would continue to investigate Trump after the Dec. 18 vote to impeach the president.
Trump's lawyers agreed to represent Parnas and an associate before they were arrested
The evidence includes an Oct. 2 email showing contact between Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump's legal team, and former Trump lawyer John Dowd about the topic of "representation" for Parnas and one his co-defendants, Igor Fruman.
"I have discussed the issue of representation with the President," Sekulow wrote to Dowd. "The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman."
The day after that email was sent, the committees said, Dowd wrote to the Intelligence Committee to clarify that he was representing Parnas and Fruman, and that they "assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump."
Those messages were sent a week before Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles International Airport with one-way tickets to Europe.
A federal indictment unsealed in October charged Parnas, 47, and Belarus-born associate Fruman with conspiring to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money to buy influence with U.S. political candidates and campaign committees. Evidence in the case includes $325,000 allegedly contributed under a false name to a political action committee supporting Trump.
Two other associates, David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin, are charged separately with contributing foreign funds to candidates in Nevada and other states in a bid to win support for a planned cannabis business. Some of the money allegedly was supplied by a Russian businessman who was not identified in the indictment.
The four men have pleaded pleaded not guilty.
Parnas tried to arrange meetings between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials
Messages translated by the committees showed communication between Parnas and top Ukrainian officials during the campaign to pressure that country to open investigations.
In May, Parnas communicated by instant message with Ivan Bakanov, the head of Ukraine's Security Service, and Serhiy Shefir, a top aide to Zelensky. Parnas tried to arrange meetings between the aides and Giuliani. He sent them articles about Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a New York Times story about Giuliani's investigative goals in Ukraine.
"If you are currently on vacation please connect someone else who is close to President Voldomyr [and] who can call me back so I can connect them with Giuliani," Parnas wrote to Bakanov on May 2.
Bakanov responded that he "shared the information he [Parnas] provided with Mr. President via the established channel," though he did not schedule a meeting with Giuliani.
The Intelligence Committee said those messages documented that Zelensky knew of the Biden allegations in May.
The evidence includes a photograph of a previously-undisclosed letter from Giuliani to Zelensky on May 10. “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th, or Tuesday, May 14th,” Giuliani wrote.
House investigators wrote that the letter “makes clear that his trip, which he publicly described at the time as an effort to 'meddle in in investigation, was undertaken with the knowledge and support of President Trump.”
Trump ally claimed U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was under surveillance
WhatsApp messages obtained by the Intelligence Committee show Parnas was in contact with Robert F. Hyde, a pro-Trump congressional candidate in Connecticut who claimed to have Yovanovitch under surveillance.
In March, Parnas sent Hyde articles critical of Yovanovitch, to which Hyde responded, "Wow. can't believe Trumo [sic] hasn't fired this b****."
Hyde sent a series of messages suggesting he had hired people in Ukraine to surveil the ambassador, alluding to "the guys over there," and updating Parnas on what he said was Yovanovitch's location.
"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told," Hyde told Parnas.
Yovanovitch's attorney Lawrence Robbins called the alleged surveillance "disturbing" and called for an investigation.
"Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing," Robbins said in a statement.
Giuliani, Parnas knew ambassador would be removed before it happened
The Intelligence Committee also obtained messages between Giuliani and Parnas about Yovanovitch's firing — the day before she was told to come back to America.
"He fired her again," Giuliani texted Parnas on April 23. Parnas responded, "I pray it happens this time. I'll call you tomorrow my brother."
Yovanovitch told House investigators she learned Giuliani was communicating with people in Ukraine in late 2018.
She said people in the Ukrainian government told her Giuliani was in touch with a former Ukrainian prosecutor general, "and that they had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me."


usatoday--2020-01-15--Virginia becomes 38th state to pass ERA for women, likely setting up issue for courts

WASHINGTON – Virginia on Wednesday became the 38th – and potentially pivotal – state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment , setting up an expected legal battle over what happens next .
If codified into the Constitution , the change would explicitly declare that women have equal rights under the law .
Supporters say it 's a long-needed protection for women who continue to face discrimination in the workplace and struggle against domestic violence and sexual harassment .
Opponents argue it 's an unnecessary amendment that could enshrine in the Constitution protections for abortion .
Opponents of the ERA also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the amendment is dead because the timeline for state action has long passed .
Supporters say the deadline is subject to challenge .
If approved , the Constitution would state that “ equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
” Here 's a look at what Virginia 's vote means : How did we get here ?
Congress approved the ERA in 1972 , including in it what the Congressional Research Service calls a `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven-year deadline for ratification by three-fourths of the states .
When the number of states fell three short of the required 38 by 1977 , Congress extended the deadline to 1982 .
But no additional states acted by the new deadline .
In 2017 , Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the amendment .
Illinois followed in 2018 .
And , after coming within one vote of passage in the Virginia Legislature when it was under GOP control last year , the now Democratic-controlled Legislature voted Wednesday to approve it .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks your Women of the Century to commemorate 19th Amendment The Virginia state Senate passed the amendment 28-12 , shortly after senators were informed the House had passed the measure , 59-41 .
When the Senate vote was announced , a throng of supporters stood and clapped .
Their cheers echoed through the chamber .
“ In so many areas , we still have a long way to go , ” Democratic state Sen. Jennifer McClellan , one of the measure ’ s sponsors , said during debate on the Senate floor Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board rooms , whether it ’ s the highest offices in states or in the country , too often women are not there because they ’ ve had to overcome years of discriminatory laws .
The Equal Rights Amendment will take a major step in the long march towards equality .
It ’ s our time .
We ’ ve waited long enough.
” But Republican state Sen. Amanda Chase , said the ERA will lead to removal of restrictions on abortions and remove gender designation for bathrooms , locker rooms , jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , it 's unnecessary because of the `` equal protection '' language of the 14th Amendment .
“ The ERA does nothing for true equality of women but uses women as a political pawn to push the liberal agenda , ” Chase said on the floor .
What happens next ?
Each chamber must still pass each other 's resolution and Gov .
Ralph Northam must sign it , steps expected to happen this week or the next .
After two-thirds of the states have acted on a constitutional amendment , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States – a nonpartisan position – to certify that it 's been ratified .
Because of the questions surrounding whether the ratification deadline is valid , the archivist has asked the Justice Department how it should proceed .
This is the first time that a proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the required number of states after a deadline under the premise that it could still be ratified .
If the amendment is certified by the archivist , it wo n't take effect for two years .
How has the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Legal Counsel said last week that the only way to ratify the amendment is to start the process over again .
`` We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and , because that deadline has expired , the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States , '' the opinion states .
Amendment supporters argue the deadline may not be enforceable .
And , if it is , Congress may have the ability to change the deadline as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading the legal challenge against the ERA ?
The Justice Department weighed in because Alabama , South Dakota and Louisiana filed a federal lawsuit against the archivist in December .
`` The people had seven years to consider the ERA , and they rejected it , '' Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement .
`` To sneak it into the Constitution through this illegal process would undermine the very basis for our constitutional order . ''
What other states have n't backed the amendment ?
Besides Alabama and Louisiana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment are : Arizona , Arkansas , Florida , Georgia , Mississippi , Missouri , North Carolina , Oklahoma , South Carolina , and Utah .
( Lawmakers in some of those states are considering ratification . )
South Dakota , which is part of the legal challenge , ratified the amendment in 1973 and then voted to withdraw in 1979 .
Four other states – Nebraska , Tennessee , Idaho and Kentucky – also voted to withdraw in the 1970s .
Whether the Constitution allows states to do that is another potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress doing ?
While the legal battles play out , Democrats in Congress are getting involved .
The House Judiciary Committee approved in November a resolution removing the ratification deadline .
The Democrat-controlled House could easily pass the resolution but it faces a much more difficult path in the GOP-controlled Senate .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , D-Md.
, praised Virginia 's action Wednesday and told USA TODAY that he 's working with the Judiciary Committee to bring legislation to the floor soon .
On a separate track , House and Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ratification process over .
Why do supporters back the ERA ?
Advocates say the amendment would provide an explicit guarantee of protection against discrimination on the basis of sex that is as strong as the protections that exist against discrimination based on race or national origin .
While many federal , state and local laws prohibit discrimination , those can be changed much more easily than a constitutional amendment .
And courts are still treating sex discrimination cases inconsistently , advocates say .
Why are opponents fighting the ERA ?
Much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from anti-abortion advocates who argue that it could enshrine in the Constitution protections for abortion that don ’ t now exist – and would do so just as there ’ s hope that the Supreme Court will overturn its 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to an abortion .
They point to court decisions in Connecticut and New Mexico that used state-approved equal rights amendments to allow `` medically necessary '' abortions for women on public assistance .
Is the ERA likely to become a 2020 campaign issue ?
The 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as energized voters and first-time candidates fueled a record-breaking gender gap that was demonstrated by the massive Women 's March the day after Trump 's inauguration .
The # MeToo movement and fallout over Brett Kavanaugh 's confirmation to the Supreme Court has fanned the gender wars and the battle over abortion that will be a prominent theme in the presidential election year .
Democrats vying for the nomination to take on Trump have brought up their support for the ERA at debates and other settings .
`` I supported the ERA from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden said at the first Democratic debate last year .
The fourth Women 's March to show opposition to Trump is Saturday .
That show of force will be followed the next week by anti-abortion activists ' annual `` March for Life . ''

Maureen Groppe and Ledyard King, USA TODAY

Virginia becomes 38th state to pass ERA for women, likely setting up issue for courts
Show Caption Hide Caption House to bring back debate on the Equal Right Amendment The House is expected to remove the 1982 deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in a move that would be mostly symbolic. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Virginia on Wednesday became the 38th – and potentially pivotal – state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, setting up an expected legal battle over what happens next.
If codified into the Constitution, the change would explicitly declare that women have equal rights under the law. Supporters say it's a long-needed protection for women who continue to face discrimination in the workplace and struggle against domestic violence and sexual harassment. Opponents argue it's an unnecessary amendment that could enshrine in the Constitution protections for abortion.
Opponents of the ERA also say that even with Virginia's passage, the amendment is dead because the timeline for state action has long passed. Supporters say the deadline is subject to challenge.
If approved, the Constitution would state that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
Here's a look at what Virginia's vote means:
How did we get here?
Congress approved the ERA in 1972, including in it what the Congressional Research Service calls a "customary, but not constitutionally mandatory" seven-year deadline for ratification by three-fourths of the states. When the number of states fell three short of the required 38 by 1977, Congress extended the deadline to 1982. But no additional states acted by the new deadline.
In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the amendment. Illinois followed in 2018. And, after coming within one vote of passage in the Virginia Legislature when it was under GOP control last year, the now Democratic-controlled Legislature voted Wednesday to approve it.
Who are your role models? USA TODAY seeks your Women of the Century to commemorate 19th Amendment
What happened Wednesday?
The Virginia state Senate passed the amendment 28-12, shortly after senators were informed the House had passed the measure, 59-41.
When the Senate vote was announced, a throng of supporters stood and clapped. Their cheers echoed through the chamber.
“In so many areas, we still have a long way to go,” Democratic state Sen. Jennifer McClellan, one of the measure’s sponsors, said during debate on the Senate floor Wednesday. “Whether it’s the board rooms, whether it’s the highest offices in states or in the country, too often women are not there because they’ve had to overcome years of discriminatory laws. The Equal Rights Amendment will take a major step in the long march towards equality. It’s our time. We’ve waited long enough.”
But Republican state Sen. Amanda Chase, said the ERA will lead to removal of restrictions on abortions and remove gender designation for bathrooms, locker rooms, jail and hospital rooms. Besides, she said, it's unnecessary because of the "equal protection" language of the 14th Amendment.
“The ERA does nothing for true equality of women but uses women as a political pawn to push the liberal agenda,” Chase said on the floor.
What happens next?
Each chamber must still pass each other's resolution and Gov. Ralph Northam must sign it, steps expected to happen this week or the next.
After two-thirds of the states have acted on a constitutional amendment, it's the job of the archivist of the United States – a nonpartisan position – to certify that it's been ratified. Because of the questions surrounding whether the ratification deadline is valid, the archivist has asked the Justice Department how it should proceed.
This is the first time that a proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the required number of states after a deadline under the premise that it could still be ratified.
If the amendment is certified by the archivist, it won't take effect for two years.
How has the Trump administration responded?
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said last week that the only way to ratify the amendment is to start the process over again.
"We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States," the opinion states.
Amendment supporters argue the deadline may not be enforceable. And, if it is, Congress may have the ability to change the deadline as they did once before.
Which states are leading the legal challenge against the ERA?
The Justice Department weighed in because Alabama, South Dakota and Louisiana filed a federal lawsuit against the archivist in December.
"The people had seven years to consider the ERA, and they rejected it," Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement. "To sneak it into the Constitution through this illegal process would undermine the very basis for our constitutional order."
What other states haven't backed the amendment?
Besides Alabama and Louisiana, other states that have not ratified the amendment are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. (Lawmakers in some of those states are considering ratification.)
South Dakota, which is part of the legal challenge, ratified the amendment in 1973 and then voted to withdraw in 1979. Four other states – Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho and Kentucky – also voted to withdraw in the 1970s. Whether the Constitution allows states to do that is another potential issue for the courts.
What is Congress doing?
While the legal battles play out, Democrats in Congress are getting involved. The House Judiciary Committee approved in November a resolution removing the ratification deadline. The Democrat-controlled House could easily pass the resolution but it faces a much more difficult path in the GOP-controlled Senate.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., praised Virginia's action Wednesday and told USA TODAY that he's working with the Judiciary Committee to bring legislation to the floor soon.
On a separate track, House and Senate Democrats have also introduced legislation to start the ratification process over.
Why do supporters back the ERA?
Advocates say the amendment would provide an explicit guarantee of protection against discrimination on the basis of sex that is as strong as the protections that exist against discrimination based on race or national origin. While many federal, state and local laws prohibit discrimination, those can be changed much more easily than a constitutional amendment. And courts are still treating sex discrimination cases inconsistently, advocates say.
Why are opponents fighting the ERA?
Much of the opposition to the amendment is coming from anti-abortion advocates who argue that it could enshrine in the Constitution protections for abortion that don’t now exist – and would do so just as there’s hope that the Supreme Court will overturn its 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.
They point to court decisions in Connecticut and New Mexico that used state-approved equal rights amendments to allow "medically necessary" abortions for women on public assistance.
Is the ERA likely to become a 2020 campaign issue?
The 2018 elections led to historic gains for women as energized voters and first-time candidates fueled a record-breaking gender gap that was demonstrated by the massive Women's March the day after Trump's inauguration. The #MeToo movement and fallout over Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court has fanned the gender wars and the battle over abortion that will be a prominent theme in the presidential election year.
Democrats vying for the nomination to take on Trump have brought up their support for the ERA at debates and other settings.
"I supported the ERA from the very beginning," former Vice President Joe Biden said at the first Democratic debate last year.
The fourth Women's March to show opposition to Trump is Saturday. That show of force will be followed the next week by anti-abortion activists' annual "March for Life."


usatoday--2020-01-15--House sends impeachment of President Trump to Senate for trial, names 7 'managers' to prosecute case

WASHINGTON – The House voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for a trial and to name the seven lawmakers who will prosecute him .
The House managers walked the articles across the Capitol and presented them to the secretary of the Senate late in the day , and lawmakers are to formally read the documents aloud at noon Thursday .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will be sworn in at 2 p.m. to preside over the trial , then senators will be sworn in .
The House voted 228 to 193 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send the Senate the two articles accusing Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Rep. Collin Peterson , D-Minn. , split from Democrats supporting the resolution and joined Republicans opposing it .
Opening arguments in the trial are likely to begin Tuesday .
`` This is as serious as it gets for any of us , '' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , who called impeachment patriotic rather than political , personal or partisan .
`` Only the vote to declare war would be something more serious than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate would be required to convict and remove Trump , which is unlikely in the chamber where Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47 .
Trump , who said he expects to be exonerated , commended Republicans for defending him .
“ They have a hoax going on over there .
Let ’ s take care of it , '' Trump said during a ceremony announcing a China trade agreement .
White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said `` this sham , illegitimate impeachment '' reveals Pelosi is more focused on politics than on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done nothing wrong , '' Grisham said .
`` He looks forward to having the due process rights in the Senate that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats denied to him , and expects to be fully exonerated . ''
The House managers – seven lawmakers chosen by Pelosi – will serve in a role similar to prosecutors in the trial by presenting the evidence against Trump .
The lead manager is Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , who is joined by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demings , D-Fla. ; Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. ; Jason Crow , D-Colo. ; and Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas .
All of the managers are lawyers except for Demings , who was Orlando 's police chief .
Jeffries , the Democratic Caucus chairman , is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House .
Crow is the only manager who does n't serve on one of the committees that investigated Trump , but he is a former Army Ranger who was a lawyer in private practice .
“ I think this is a diverse group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-N.Y. , chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that helped investigate Trump .
Engel noted that two first-term lawmakers were chosen – Garcia and Crow – and said a larger number of managers would have been “ unwieldy.
” Pelosi delayed sending the articles after the House approved them Dec. 18 to learn more about how the trial would work .
Some senators voiced frustration with the delay .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , said it yielded nothing but revealed a lack of urgency to the charges .
Pelosi highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out since last month when the House passed articles , including evidence released Tuesday about Lev Parnas , a Ukraine-born associate of Trump 's personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani .
Former national security adviser John Bolton , who declined to testify in the House inquiry , said he would testify at the trial if subpoenaed .
Trump said he might block the testimony under executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of advice to a president from top aides .
`` Time has been our friend in all of this because it has yielded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public domain , '' Pelosi said .
Nadler said the trial is necessary because Trump `` gravely abused the power of his office when he strong-armed a foreign government to announce investigations '' into one of his political rivals , former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ He jeopardized our national security , '' Nadler said .
`` He did it all for his personal , political gain.
” Republicans blasted the impeachment and called it unjustified , unfair and entirely political .
“ This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCarthy , R-Calif. , who called the impeachment the “ fastest , weakest and thinnest ” in American history .
McConnell said Wednesday that House Democrats have `` taken a dangerous road '' by weaponizing impeachment because they wanted to remove Trump .
McConnell said any president could be threatened by impeachment for policy differences with Congress .
`` Going about it in this subjective , unfair and rushed way is corrosive to our institutions .
It hurts national unity , ” McConnell said .
“ And it virtually guarantees that future houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeach any future president they do not like . ''

Bart Jansen, Christal Hayes and Nicholas Wu, USA TODAY

House sends impeachment of President Trump to Senate for trial, names 7 'managers' to prosecute case
Show Caption Hide Caption Impeachment managers voted on by House to send articles of impeachment The House of Rep. voted on a formal resolution to appoint impeachment managers to appropriate funds for the trial. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The House voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for a trial and to name the seven lawmakers who will prosecute him.
The House managers walked the articles across the Capitol and presented them to the secretary of the Senate late in the day, and lawmakers are to formally read the documents aloud at noon Thursday. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will be sworn in at 2 p.m. to preside over the trial, then senators will be sworn in.
The House voted 228 to 193, largely along party lines, to send the Senate the two articles accusing Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., split from Democrats supporting the resolution and joined Republicans opposing it. Opening arguments in the trial are likely to begin Tuesday.
"This is as serious as it gets for any of us," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who called impeachment patriotic rather than political, personal or partisan. "Only the vote to declare war would be something more serious than this."
Presidential impeachment: Clinton, Johnson, Nixon test U.S. democracy Presidents have been impeached, but none have been removed from office due to impeachment. Confusing? Here's how. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to convict and remove Trump, which is unlikely in the chamber where Republicans outnumber Democrats 53 to 47.
Trump, who said he expects to be exonerated, commended Republicans for defending him.
“They have a hoax going on over there. Let’s take care of it," Trump said during a ceremony announcing a China trade agreement.
White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said "this sham, illegitimate impeachment" reveals Pelosi is more focused on politics than on the American people.
"President Trump has done nothing wrong," Grisham said. "He looks forward to having the due process rights in the Senate that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats denied to him, and expects to be fully exonerated."
The House managers – seven lawmakers chosen by Pelosi – will serve in a role similar to prosecutors in the trial by presenting the evidence against Trump. The lead manager is Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who is joined by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Val Demings, D-Fla.; Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas.
All of the managers are lawyers except for Demings, who was Orlando's police chief. Jeffries, the Democratic Caucus chairman, is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Crow is the only manager who doesn't serve on one of the committees that investigated Trump, but he is a former Army Ranger who was a lawyer in private practice.
“I think this is a diverse group," said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that helped investigate Trump. Engel noted that two first-term lawmakers were chosen – Garcia and Crow – and said a larger number of managers would have been “unwieldy.”
Pelosi delayed sending the articles after the House approved them Dec. 18 to learn more about how the trial would work. Some senators voiced frustration with the delay. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it yielded nothing but revealed a lack of urgency to the charges.
Pelosi highlighted the amount of information that has come out since last month when the House passed articles, including evidence released Tuesday about Lev Parnas, a Ukraine-born associate of Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Former national security adviser John Bolton, who declined to testify in the House inquiry, said he would testify at the trial if subpoenaed. Trump said he might block the testimony under executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of advice to a president from top aides.
"Time has been our friend in all of this because it has yielded incriminating evidence, more truth into the public domain," Pelosi said.
Nadler said the trial is necessary because Trump "gravely abused the power of his office when he strong-armed a foreign government to announce investigations" into one of his political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.
“He jeopardized our national security," Nadler said. "He did it all for his personal, political gain.”
Republicans blasted the impeachment and called it unjustified, unfair and entirely political.
“This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who called the impeachment the “fastest, weakest and thinnest” in American history.
McConnell said Wednesday that House Democrats have "taken a dangerous road" by weaponizing impeachment because they wanted to remove Trump. McConnell said any president could be threatened by impeachment for policy differences with Congress.
"Going about it in this subjective, unfair and rushed way is corrosive to our institutions. It hurts national unity,” McConnell said. “And it virtually guarantees that future houses of either party will feel free to impeach any future president they do not like."