usatoday--2020-01-16--'I remember that call': Devin Nunes recalls 'odd' chat with indicted Giuliani associate Parnas

WASHINGTON – Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News that he does recall an April phone conversation with Lev Parnas , an associate of President Donald Trump 's personal attorney , after initially saying he did not remember the call when his phone records surfaced last month .
Parnas claims Nunes , Trump and other top Republicans had direct knowledge of the alleged pressure campaign in Ukraine that led to Trump 's impeachment .
His calls with Nunes , the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , were first made public in early December when the committee released its impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that showed calls and texts between Nunes and Trump attorney Rudolph Giuliani on April 10 , followed by an exchange with Parnas on April 12 .
`` I remember that call , which was very odd , random , talking about random things , '' Nunes told Fox on Wednesday .
`` And I said , 'Great , you know , just talk to my staff , ' and boom , boom , boom .
Which is normal , standard operating procedure . ''
Impeachment : Senate to open impeachment trial against President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here 's what to expect .
Nunes previously did not recall those details .
When the phone record first surfaced , he told Fox News host Sean Hannity he did n't remember the call but said he would look into it .
In another Fox News interview on Dec. 8 , he said that after checking his phone records he recalled getting a call from someone he did n't know and referring him to his staff .
`` I just did n't know the name .
This name Parnas , '' Nunes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I always like to remind people is we are dealing with people every day .
We 're an oversight committee , so we have incoming calls that come to my office , to my cell phone etcetera , etcetera . ''
The House has transmitted two articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate for a trial that Leader Mitch McConnell hopes to begin next week .
The charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stem from allegations that Trump used military aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who claims he relayed messages to Ukraine 's current president and his predecessor demanding the investigations , told MSNBC on Wednesday that Nunes had direct knowledge of the alleged effort to push Ukraine into announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election .
`` This is someone who 's been indicted for major felonies , '' Nunes said of Parnas , who is facing federal campaign finance charges .
.
`` It 's very odd that the Democrats have been playing cat and mouse with this guy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after an immunity deal . ''
Nunes filed a $ 435,350,000 lawsuit against CNN last month for a story in which Parnas claimed that Nunes met last year in Vienna with a former Ukrainian prosecutor offering dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden .
Nunes produced travel records that show he was in Libya and Malta at the time of his alleged Vienna meeting .
`` This person accused me of being in Vienna , '' Nunes said Wednesday .
`` This is someone who does n't tell the truth .
That 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nunes said after looking at Parnas ' notes and phone records , `` it does n't seem like there 's anything of any relevance in there . ''
But many of Trump 's future Democratic jurors in the Senate thought Parnas and his supporting evidence are critical to the trial .
`` Last night ’ s Lev Parnas interview couldn ’ t have made it more clear – the Senate must hear from first-hand witnesses and demand the White House turn over documents related to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in tweet .
And Sen. Chris Murphy , D-Conn. , disputed the attacks on Parnas ' credibility .
`` The argument that Parnas can ’ t be trusted because he has committed crimes is priceless , '' Murphy said .
`` This is how criminal conspiracies work .
Everybody is committing crimes and eventually the guys implementing the crime turn in the guys who ordered and oversaw it . ''

'I remember that call': Devin Nunes recalls 'odd' chat with indicted Giuliani associate Parnas
Show Caption Hide Caption Giuliani associate Lev Parnas claims Trump knew about Ukraine Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas said President Trump "knew exactly what was going on" in Ukraine. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News that he does recall an April phone conversation with Lev Parnas, an associate of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, after initially saying he did not remember the call when his phone records surfaced last month.
Parnas claims Nunes, Trump and other top Republicans had direct knowledge of the alleged pressure campaign in Ukraine that led to Trump's impeachment. His calls with Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, were first made public in early December when the committee released its impeachment report.
The report included phone records that showed calls and texts between Nunes and Trump attorney Rudolph Giuliani on April 10, followed by an exchange with Parnas on April 12.
"I remember that call, which was very odd, random, talking about random things," Nunes told Fox on Wednesday. "And I said, 'Great, you know, just talk to my staff,' and boom, boom, boom. Which is normal, standard operating procedure."
Impeachment: Senate to open impeachment trial against President Trump; arguments begin in earnest Tuesday. Here's what to expect.
Nunes previously did not recall those details. When the phone record first surfaced, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity he didn't remember the call but said he would look into it. In another Fox News interview on Dec. 8, he said that after checking his phone records he recalled getting a call from someone he didn't know and referring him to his staff.
"I just didn't know the name. This name Parnas," Nunes said Wednesday.
"So, what I always like to remind people is we are dealing with people every day. We're an oversight committee, so we have incoming calls that come to my office, to my cell phone etcetera, etcetera."
The House has transmitted two articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate for a trial that Leader Mitch McConnell hopes to begin next week. The charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stem from allegations that Trump used military aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations that he thought would benefit him politically.
Parnas, who claims he relayed messages to Ukraine's current president and his predecessor demanding the investigations, told MSNBC on Wednesday that Nunes had direct knowledge of the alleged effort to push Ukraine into announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.
Watchdog: White House budget office violated federal law in withholding Ukraine security funds
"This is someone who's been indicted for major felonies," Nunes said of Parnas, who is facing federal campaign finance charges. . "It's very odd that the Democrats have been playing cat and mouse with this guy. There's some talk that he's after an immunity deal."
Nunes filed a $435,350,000 lawsuit against CNN last month for a story in which Parnas claimed that Nunes met last year in Vienna with a former Ukrainian prosecutor offering dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. Nunes produced travel records that show he was in Libya and Malta at the time of his alleged Vienna meeting.
"This person accused me of being in Vienna," Nunes said Wednesday. "This is someone who doesn't tell the truth. That's something that didn't happen."
Nunes said after looking at Parnas' notes and phone records, "it doesn't seem like there's anything of any relevance in there."
But many of Trump's future Democratic jurors in the Senate thought Parnas and his supporting evidence are critical to the trial.
"Last night’s Lev Parnas interview couldn’t have made it more clear – the Senate must hear from first-hand witnesses and demand the White House turn over documents related to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine," Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said in tweet.
And Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., disputed the attacks on Parnas' credibility.
"The argument that Parnas can’t be trusted because he has committed crimes is priceless," Murphy said. "This is how criminal conspiracies work. Everybody is committing crimes and eventually the guys implementing the crime turn in the guys who ordered and oversaw it."
More: Rep. Devin Nunes files $435 million defamation lawsuit against CNN


usatoday--2020-01-16--Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas claims Donald Trump 'knew exactly what was going on'

Rudy Giuliani 's associate Lev Parnas said President Trump `` knew exactly what was going on '' in Ukraine .

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas claims Trump knew about Ukraine
Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas said President Trump "knew exactly what was going on" in Ukraine.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-17--Supreme Court will tackle dispute over birth control, religious liberty

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if the Trump administration can let employers and universities with religious or moral objections deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives .
The justices ' willingness to hear a dispute the high court has considered twice before likely bodes well for groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor , which have disputed a birth control mandate first implemented under President Barack Obama in 2011 .
As part of the Affordable Care Act , most employers were required to cover the full cost of contraceptives for their workers .
The provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2014 , the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations with religious objections , such as Hobby Lobby , could get exemptions .
When non-profit groups sought similar exemptions two years later , the court sent seven disputes back to federal appeals courts in search of a compromise .
That has proven elusive .
The Trump administration changed the rules in 2017 to provide the broad exemption sought by those claiming conscience objections .
That action was challenged by California , Pennsylvania and other states , and federal courts blocked the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged the Supreme Court to hear the case again `` to bring clarity and closure that neither lower courts nor ... the agencies can provide . ''
It claimed an appeals court ruling went so far as to imperil current exemptions for churches and other religious organizations .
Mark Rienzi , the lawyer representing the Little Sisters of the Poor , had likened the need for religious exemptions on birth control coverage to other issues , such as legal abortion and assisted suicide .
“ Why is Pennsylvania still trying to fight tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago ? ''
Rienzi said Friday in a statement .
`` There are plenty of ways to provide people with contraceptives without forcing Catholic nuns to participate .
`` It 's too bad that the Supreme Court is being forced by Pennsylvania to deal with this issue again , but at least the court can now bring this litigation to a permanent end , ” Rienzi said .
Women 's rights groups originally warned that the administration 's rules risked free birth control coverage for millions of women .
Conservative groups said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and could recoup coverage for contraceptives directly from insurers .
“ Allowing employers and universities to use their religious beliefs to block employees ’ and students ’ birth control coverage isn ’ t religious liberty – it 's discrimination , ” said Brigitte Amiri , deputy director at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project .
“ The Trump administration ’ s attempt to take away people ’ s insurance coverage for contraception is one of the administration ’ s many attacks on access to abortion and contraception . ''

Supreme Court will tackle dispute over birth control, religious liberty
Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court deeply divided over religious freedom, reproductive rights An epic legal clash between religious liberty and reproductive rights left the Supreme Court deeply divided Wednesday, raising the likelihood that the justices will deadlock over a challenge by non-profits to the so-called "contraceptive mandate." Jarrad Henderson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if the Trump administration can let employers and universities with religious or moral objections deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives.
The justices' willingness to hear a dispute the high court has considered twice before likely bodes well for groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, which have disputed a birth control mandate first implemented under President Barack Obama in 2011.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, most employers were required to cover the full cost of contraceptives for their workers. The provision has been embroiled in lawsuits ever since.
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations with religious objections, such as Hobby Lobby, could get exemptions. When non-profit groups sought similar exemptions two years later, the court sent seven disputes back to federal appeals courts in search of a compromise. That has proven elusive.
The Trump administration changed the rules in 2017 to provide the broad exemption sought by those claiming conscience objections. That action was challenged by California, Pennsylvania and other states, and federal courts blocked the new rules nationwide.
The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case again "to bring clarity and closure that neither lower courts nor ... the agencies can provide." It claimed an appeals court ruling went so far as to imperil current exemptions for churches and other religious organizations.
Mark Rienzi, the lawyer representing the Little Sisters of the Poor, had likened the need for religious exemptions on birth control coverage to other issues, such as legal abortion and assisted suicide.
“Why is Pennsylvania still trying to fight tired and unnecessary culture wars that were settled years ago?" Rienzi said Friday in a statement. "There are plenty of ways to provide people with contraceptives without forcing Catholic nuns to participate.
"It's too bad that the Supreme Court is being forced by Pennsylvania to deal with this issue again, but at least the court can now bring this litigation to a permanent end,” Rienzi said.
Women's rights groups originally warned that the administration's rules risked free birth control coverage for millions of women. Conservative groups said fewer than 200,000 women would be affected and could recoup coverage for contraceptives directly from insurers.
“Allowing employers and universities to use their religious beliefs to block employees’ and students’ birth control coverage isn’t religious liberty – it's discrimination,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The Trump administration’s attempt to take away people’s insurance coverage for contraception is one of the administration’s many attacks on access to abortion and contraception."


usatoday--2020-01-17--Trump's impeachment legal team to include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has tapped two of his longtime lawyers to lead his impeachment defense team in next week 's Senate trial – White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and private attorney Jay Sekulow – and added other well-known attorneys who have often defended him on television .
The latter group includes Alan Dershowitz , a noted Harvard law professor ; Kenneth Starr , the independent counsel who prosecuted the President Bill Clinton impeachment case , and Robert Ray , who replaced Starr as independent counsel and wrapped up the investigation of Clinton .
An official confirmed the planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because a formal announcement is expected later Friday .
The Senate trial is expected to open Tuesday on two articles of impeachment passed by the House on Dec. 18 : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The allegations stem from Trump 's request that Ukraine investigate U.S. political rivals , including Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter , who had business interests in the country .
Impeachment investigators also said Trump held up military aid to Ukraine as well as a White House meeting until it complied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition , House Democrats alleged the White House 's refusal to give testimony and documents illegally obstructed Congress ' investigation .
Here 's a look at the lawyers who will be defending Trump : 'Impartial justice '' : Can partisan senators serve as unbiased jurors in the Trump impeachment trial ?
Dershowitz has been criticized for his representation of Jeffrey Epstein , a financier and convicted sex offender who committed suicide in jail in August .
He worked on the 2008 plea deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county jail .
The professor emeritus at Harvard Law School has had a slew of celebrity clients over the decades , including Claus von Bülow , O.J .
Simpson , and Mike Tyson .
Regarding Trump , Dershowitz issued a statement on Twitter on Friday saying he will `` present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal . ''
Dershowitz also said that he is `` non partisan '' on this issue , and noted that he opposed Clinton 's impeachment .
He said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution '' and wants `` to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent . ''
Starr served as solicitor general and was considered a Supreme Court candidate during the presidency of George H.W .
Bush .
He was appointed independent counsel in 1994 to investigate Clinton over the Whitewater land deal as well as other matters .
Opponents criticized the way Starr handled the investigation of Clinton and his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky , saying he turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – a group that included then-New York City businessman Donald Trump .
“ I think Ken Starr ’ s a lunatic , ” Trump said in a 1999 interview .
“ I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.
” Trump has been more complimentary of Starr in recent years , especially his criticisms of the House impeachment case .
Critics also said that Starr lost his job as president of Baylor University because of the way the school handled sexual assault allegations against members of the football team .
After replacing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a final report on the Whitewater investigation – and also negotiated an agreement with Clinton to avoid a possible perjury prosecution after he left office in early 2001 .
In exchange , Clinton agreed to give up his law license for 5 years , pay a fine of $ 25,000 to cover lawyers ’ fees , and acknowledge wrongdoing in his testimony on his relationship with Lewinsky .
More recently , Ray has appeared on Fox News to denounce impeachment as `` partisan . ''
The leaders of Trump 's legal team are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters , including the House impeachment investigation .
In his role as the White House 's top lawyer , Cipollone made the legal arguments to support the administration 's refusal to participate in the House impeachment inquiry .
Cipollone also worked to block administration officials from testifying before the House or providing documents to impeachment investigators , arguing that Congress is not entitled to information about internal deliberations within the executive branch – an argument he may continue to make during the Senate trial .
`` This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process rights , and fundamental fairness , '' Cipollone said in a letter to the House saying the White House would not participate in the impeachment inquiry .
Rand Paul on Senate trial : ' I don ’ t think any Republicans are going to vote for impeachment' House Democrats protested what they called White House stonewalling , and made it part of an impeachment article accusing Trump of obstruction of Congress .
Sekulow , meanwhile , represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sekulow was best known as a Supreme Court litigator who specialized in religious liberty cases .
He is also a frequent guest on television news programs and hosts a daily radio talk show .
Trump 's legal team also includes Cipollone ’ s two top deputies , Patrick F. Philbin and Michael M. Purpura , as well as attorney Jane Raskin , who worked for Trump during the Mueller investigation .
Pam Bondi , the former Florida attorney general , who has been working with the White House during the impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment legal time .
Not on the team : Trump private attorney Rudy Giuliani .
As someone who has conducted his own investigation of Ukraine activities , Giuliani said he is a potential witness in the impeachment trial because `` I possess facts , '' “ I don ’ t think I ’ ll be called , but I will be ready in case , '' Giuliani said in a text message exchange with USA TODAY .
Giuliani described the president 's legal team as “ excellent , '' and said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a great case . ''
Others could be added to Trump 's team later , including some House Republicans who participated in the impeachment inquiry .
The attorneys are already busy preparing a legal brief defending Trump against the impeachment charges .
It is due to be submitted to the Senate by noon on Monday .
The trial itself is set to begin Tuesday , though Trump himself is scheduled to watch his legal team 's work from afar : He plans to be at an international economic conference in Davos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'Never heard about this at all ' : Pompeo says he knew nothing about alleged Yovanovitch tracking The president 's lawyers are expected to mount an aggressive defense .
Trump and aides said he did not improperly pressure Ukraine , and that he only wanted the nation to address problems with corruption .
Concern about corruption is the reason the administration gave for holding up military aid to the nation that was finally released in September .
Trump 's legal team will likely be involved in Senate arguments about whether to call witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they will push for witnesses to talk about Trump 's dealings with Ukraine .
Their list includes former National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney .
Chief Justice John Roberts : His impeachment role is to speak softly , set a good example Trump and his attorneys are likely to oppose any testimony from a current employee like Mulvaney , saying his conversations with the president are subject to executive privilege .
At the same time , the president and aides have said that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will seek to call witnesses of their own .
They include Hunter Biden and Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , one of the leaders of the impeachment inquiry in the House .
Trump himself suggested he may want to invoke executive privilege in the case of Bolton because his testimony would deal with matters discussed when he was in the White House .

Trump's impeachment legal team to include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz
Show Caption Hide Caption The Senate impeachment trial begins with articles move to the Senate The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump has officially begun, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, and much yet to decide. Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has tapped two of his longtime lawyers to lead his impeachment defense team in next week's Senate trial – White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and private attorney Jay Sekulow – and added other well-known attorneys who have often defended him on television.
The latter group includes Alan Dershowitz, a noted Harvard law professor; Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who prosecuted the President Bill Clinton impeachment case, and Robert Ray, who replaced Starr as independent counsel and wrapped up the investigation of Clinton.
"President Trump has done nothing wrong and is confident that this team will defend him, the voters, and our democracy from this baseless, illegitimate impeachment," said White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham.
.
The Senate trial is expected to open Tuesday on two articles of impeachment passed by the House on Dec. 18: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The allegations stem from Trump's request that Ukraine investigate U.S. political rivals, including Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had business interests in the country.
Impeachment investigators accuse Trump of holding up military aid to Ukraine as well as a White House meeting to pressure officials to investigate Biden and others. In addition, House Democrats allege the White House's refusal to allow testimony of key officials and provide documents illegally obstructed Congress' investigation.
Here's a look at the lawyers who will be defending Trump:
Why a president can be impeached and remain in office Impeaching a U.S. president might not be the be-all-end-all for their career. We explain why this is the case. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
'Impartial justice'': Can partisan senators serve as unbiased jurors in the Trump impeachment trial?
Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz has been criticized for his representation of Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender who committed suicide in jail in August. He worked on the 2008 plea deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges for roughly a year in a county jail.
The professor emeritus at Harvard Law School has had a slew of celebrity clients over the decades, including Claus von Bülow, O.J. Simpson, and Mike Tyson.
Regarding Trump, Dershowitz issued a statement on Twitter on Friday saying he will "present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal."
Dershowitz also said that he is "non partisan" on this issue, and noted that he opposed Clinton's impeachment. He said he wants to defend Trump because he "believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution" and wants "to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent."
Ken Starr
Starr served as solicitor general and was considered a Supreme Court candidate during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. He was appointed independent counsel in 1994 to investigate Clinton over the Whitewater land deal and other matters.
Opponents criticized the way Starr handled the investigation of Clinton and his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying he turned a private matter into a public prosecution – a group that included then-New York City businessman Donald Trump.
“I think Ken Starr’s a lunatic,” Trump said in a 1999 interview. “I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.”
But Trump has welcomed Starr's criticisms of the House impeachment case.
Critics also said that Starr lost his job as president of Baylor University because of the way the school handled sexual assault allegations against members of the football team.
Robert Ray
After replacing Starr as independent counsel, Ray completed a final report on the Whitewater investigation – and also negotiated an agreement with Clinton to avoid a possible perjury prosecution after he left office in early 2001.
In exchange, Clinton agreed to give up his law license for 5 years, pay a fine of $25,000 to cover lawyers’ fees, and acknowledge wrongdoing in his testimony on his relationship with Lewinsky.
More recently, Ray has appeared on Fox News to denounce impeachment as "partisan."
Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow
The leaders of Trump's legal team are attorneys he has worked with on previous matters, including the House impeachment investigation.
In his role as the White House's top lawyer, Cipollone made the legal arguments to support the administration's refusal to participate in the House impeachment inquiry.
Cipollone also worked to block administration officials from testifying before the House or providing documents to impeachment investigators, arguing that Congress is not entitled to information about internal deliberations within the executive branch – an argument he may continue to make during the Senate trial.
"This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness," Cipollone said in a letter to the House, saying the White House would not participate in the impeachment inquiry.
Rand Paul on Senate trial: 'I don’t think any Republicans are going to vote for impeachment'
House Democrats protested what they called White House stonewalling, and made it part of an impeachment article accusing Trump of obstruction of Congress.
Sekulow, meanwhile, represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Before his work with Trump, Sekulow was best known as a Supreme Court litigator who specialized in religious liberty cases. He is also a frequent guest on television news programs and hosts a daily radio talk show.
Jane Raskin, Eric Herschmann, Pam Bondi
Trump's legal team also includes attorney Jane Raskin, who worked for Trump during the Mueller investigation, and Eric Herschmann, an attorney with the Kasowitz Benson Torres legal firm that has represented Trump on various cases for the last 15 years.
Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general, who worked with the White House during the impeachment inquiry, is also on Trump's legal team for the trial.
Not on the team: Trump private attorney Rudy Giuliani.
As someone who has conducted his own investigation of Ukraine activities, Giuliani said he is a potential witness in the impeachment trial because "I possess facts."
“I don’t think I’ll be called, but I will be ready in case," Giuliani said in a text message exchange with USA TODAY.
Giuliani described the president's legal team as “excellent," and said they are "all friends and great lawyers with a great case."
Others could be added to Trump's team later, including some House Republicans who participated in the impeachment inquiry.
Preparing a defense
The attorneys are already busy preparing a legal brief defending Trump against the impeachment charges. It is due to be submitted to the Senate by noon on Monday.
The trial itself is set to begin Tuesday, though Trump himself is scheduled to watch his legal team's work from afar: He plans to be at an international economic conference in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday and Wednesday.
'Never heard about this at all': Pompeo says he knew nothing about alleged Yovanovitch tracking
The president's lawyers are expected to mount an aggressive defense.
Trump and aides said he did not improperly pressure Ukraine, and that he only wanted the nation to address problems with corruption. Concern about corruption is the reason the administration gave for holding up military aid to the nation that was finally released in September.
Trump's legal team will likely be involved in Senate arguments about whether to call witnesses in the trial.
Senate Democrats have said they will push for witnesses to talk about Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Their list includes former White House national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Chief Justice John Roberts: His impeachment role is to speak softly, set a good example
Trump and his attorneys are likely to oppose any testimony from a current employee like Mulvaney, saying his conversations with the president are subject to executive privilege.
At the same time, the president and aides have said that if the Senate compels prosecution witnesses, they will seek to call witnesses, potentially including Hunter Biden and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., one of the leaders of the impeachment inquiry in the House.
Trump himself suggested he may want to invoke executive privilege in the case of Bolton because his testimony would deal with matters discussed when he was in the White House.
Contributing: Kevin Johnson


usatoday--2020-01-17--Supreme Court will hear case that could decide future presidential elections

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court entered the 2020 presidential fray Friday by agreeing to decide a threshold question before Election Day : Must the 538 members of the Electoral College vote for their states ' winning candidates ?
Yes , the Supreme Court of Washington State ruled in May , upholding $ 1,000 fines against three Democratic electors who cast their votes in December 2016 for Colin Powell rather than Hillary Clinton , who had won the state a month earlier .
No , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in August , upholding the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton by a Democratic elector in Colorado .
Never before have the freewheeling inclinations of some Electoral College members flipped an election , so the impact of the high court 's decision may be just mathematical .
But the 2020 race between President Donald Trump and his eventual Democratic opponent could be too close for such comfort .
`` This court should resolve this conflict now , before it arises within the context of a contested election , '' Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig urged on behalf of the three Washington State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either went rogue or tried to do so in 2016 , enough to change the results of five previous presidential elections .
`` As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer , there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest , '' Lessig warned .
Under the Constitution , each state appoints electors to cast the electoral ballots apportioned by the popular vote .
Twenty-nine states and the District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their party 's candidate ; some block nonconforming ballots from being counted or replace the electors , while a few provide for criminal penalties .
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the state was within its rights to issue the first-ever fines for so-called faithless electors .
`` An elector acts under the authority of the state , and no First Amendment right is violated when a state imposes a fine based on an elector ’ s violation of his pledge , '' the court ruled in an 8-1 decision .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent in the Colorado case .
`` The states may not interfere with the electors ’ exercise of discretion in voting for president and vice president by removing the elector and nullifying his vote , '' the court ruled .
The split between the two courts – as well as the real prospect that free-thinking electors could decide who wins the White House this year or in the future – likely swayed the justices into action .
Even the Colorado elector whose vote for Kasich was upheld agreed that the Supreme Court should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the justices to stay away .
To grant electors such independence , state Solicitor General Noah Purcell wrote the justices , `` would mean that only 538 Americans – members of the Electoral College – have a say in who should be president ; everything else is simply advisory . ''

Supreme Court will hear case that could decide future presidential elections
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump cruises to Electoral College victory There were many protesters but few faithless electors as Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote Monday — ensuring that the billionaire will become America's 45th president. (Dec. 19) AP
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court entered the 2020 presidential fray Friday by agreeing to decide a threshold question before Election Day: Must the 538 members of the Electoral College vote for their states' winning candidates?
Yes, the Supreme Court of Washington State ruled in May, upholding $1,000 fines against three Democratic electors who cast their votes in December 2016 for Colin Powell rather than Hillary Clinton, who had won the state a month earlier.
No, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in August, upholding the vote cast for Republican John Kasich rather than Clinton by a Democratic elector in Colorado.
Never before have the freewheeling inclinations of some Electoral College members flipped an election, so the impact of the high court's decision may be just mathematical. But the 2020 race between President Donald Trump and his eventual Democratic opponent could be too close for such comfort.
"This court should resolve this conflict now, before it arises within the context of a contested election," Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig urged on behalf of the three Washington State electors. He noted that 10 electors either went rogue or tried to do so in 2016, enough to change the results of five previous presidential elections.
"As the demographics of the United States indicate that contests will become even closer, there is a significant probability that such swings could force this court to resolve the question of electoral freedom within the context of an ongoing contest," Lessig warned.
Under the Constitution, each state appoints electors to cast the electoral ballots apportioned by the popular vote. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia require electors to vote for their party's candidate; some block nonconforming ballots from being counted or replace the electors, while a few provide for criminal penalties.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the state was within its rights to issue the first-ever fines for so-called faithless electors.
"An elector acts under the authority of the state, and no First Amendment right is violated when a state imposes a fine based on an elector’s violation of his pledge," the court ruled in an 8-1 decision.
The 10th Circuit appeals court set a different precedent in the Colorado case. "The states may not interfere with the electors’ exercise of discretion in voting for president and vice president by removing the elector and nullifying his vote," the court ruled.
The split between the two courts – as well as the real prospect that free-thinking electors could decide who wins the White House this year or in the future – likely swayed the justices into action.
Even the Colorado elector whose vote for Kasich was upheld agreed that the Supreme Court should weigh in. Only Washington State urged the justices to stay away.
To grant electors such independence, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell wrote the justices, "would mean that only 538 Americans – members of the Electoral College – have a say in who should be president; everything else is simply advisory."


usatoday--2020-01-17--Federal appeals court dismisses suit brought by youths over climate change

PORTLAND , Ore. ( AP ) — A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by 21 young people who claimed the U.S. government ’ s climate policies and reliance on fossil fuels harms them , jeopardizes their future and violates their constitutional rights , potentially bringing an end to a long-running legal battle that activists saw as an important front in the war against environmental degradation .
The Oregon-based youth advocacy group Our Children ’ s Trust filed the lawsuit in 2015 in Eugene on behalf of the youngsters .
It sought an injunction ordering the government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel emissions and draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide emission .
The case had bounced around the federal courts for five years and multiple trial dates were canceled .
The 2-1 vote for dismissal was a major blow for the climate activists , who have filed numerous similar cases in state and federal courts and currently have nine cases pending in state courts from Alaska to New Mexico .
It wasn ’ t immediately clear if any further legal avenues were open to the plaintiffs and their attorneys .
Our Children ’ s Trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to telephone messages seeking comment .
Erin Barnhart , a spokeswoman for Children ’ s Trust , said in an email that the group would release a statement later Friday .
Government attorneys repeatedly sought the case ’ s dismissal and succeeded in having the scope of the claims narrowed and some defendants dismissed during years of back-and-forth litigation .
On Friday , the court wrote that the youngsters made a compelling case that action is needed and agreed that climate change is undeniable , but said the proper venue for addressing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel use is the U.S. Congress or the electorate .
In addition , the judges wrote that ending the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. alone — which is what the plaintiffs sought — would not be enough to slow or stop climate change .
“ Rather , the record shows that many of the emissions causing climate change happened decades ago or come from foreign and non-governmental sources , ” the opinion read , adding that experts who testified in the case said such results would require a “ fundamental transformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
The youths , who were between the ages of 8 and 18 when the lawsuit was filed in 2015 , tied specific incidents that had affected their lives to climate change and U.S. government policies .
In one instance , a young woman said she was forced to leave her home on a Navajo reservation because of water scarcity , separating her from her relatives .
Others mentioned physical ailments from pollution .
“ These injuries are not simply ‘ conjectural ’ or ‘ hypothetical ; ’ at least some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change is affecting them now in concrete ways and will continue to do so unless checked , ” the majority wrote .
The dissenting judge , Josephine Stanton , wrote that “ my colleagues throw up their hands.
” “ No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists .
... and the mere fact that this suit can not alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution , ” Stanton wrote in her dissent .
Previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change lawsuit brought by children on behalf of 'future generations '

Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press, USA TODAY

Federal appeals court dismisses suit brought by youths over climate change
Show Caption Hide Caption Jane Fonda brings stars for last DC climate rally Jane Fonda returned to Washington, DC for her final Fire Drill Friday in the nation's capital. She brought along famous friends including Joaquin Phoenix, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen and Amber Valletta. (Jan. 10) AP
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by 21 young people who claimed the U.S. government’s climate policies and reliance on fossil fuels harms them, jeopardizes their future and violates their constitutional rights, potentially bringing an end to a long-running legal battle that activists saw as an important front in the war against environmental degradation.
The Oregon-based youth advocacy group Our Children’s Trust filed the lawsuit in 2015 in Eugene on behalf of the youngsters. It sought an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide emission. The case had bounced around the federal courts for five years and multiple trial dates were canceled.
The 2-1 vote for dismissal was a major blow for the climate activists, who have filed numerous similar cases in state and federal courts and currently have nine cases pending in state courts from Alaska to New Mexico.
It wasn’t immediately clear if any further legal avenues were open to the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Our Children’s Trust and Earth Guardians did not immediately respond to telephone messages seeking comment.
Erin Barnhart, a spokeswoman for Children’s Trust, said in an email that the group would release a statement later Friday.
Government attorneys repeatedly sought the case’s dismissal and succeeded in having the scope of the claims narrowed and some defendants dismissed during years of back-and-forth litigation.
On Friday, the court wrote that the youngsters made a compelling case that action is needed and agreed that climate change is undeniable, but said the proper venue for addressing the nation’s emissions policies and fossil fuel use is the U.S. Congress or the electorate.
In addition, the judges wrote that ending the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. alone — which is what the plaintiffs sought — would not be enough to slow or stop climate change.
“Rather, the record shows that many of the emissions causing climate change happened decades ago or come from foreign and non-governmental sources,” the opinion read, adding that experts who testified in the case said such results would require a “fundamental transformation” of the world’s energy system.
The youths, who were between the ages of 8 and 18 when the lawsuit was filed in 2015, tied specific incidents that had affected their lives to climate change and U.S. government policies. In one instance, a young woman said she was forced to leave her home on a Navajo reservation because of water scarcity, separating her from her relatives. Others mentioned physical ailments from pollution.
“These injuries are not simply ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’ at least some of the plaintiffs have presented evidence that climate change is affecting them now in concrete ways and will continue to do so unless checked,” the majority wrote.
The dissenting judge, Josephine Stanton, wrote that “my colleagues throw up their hands.”
“No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. ... and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution,” Stanton wrote in her dissent.
Previously: Supreme Court won't halt unusual climate change lawsuit brought by children on behalf of 'future generations'


usatoday--2020-01-17--Pentagon to restrict, monitor foreign trainees to prevent repeat of Pensacola Navy base shooting

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon has developed new guidelines for vetting foreign military trainees after a shooting that killed three at a Pensacola Navy base in December , Defense Department officials announced Friday .
The new rules include restrictions on possession and use of firearms , access to bases and travel while off duty .
Foreign military students will be continuously monitored while they are enrolled in training , said Garry Reid , a Defense intelligence official .
`` When these procedures are in place , the military departments will be authorized to fully resume training that has been suspended since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Days after the attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola , the Navy grounded more than 300 Saudi nationals who were training to be pilots .
Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist ordered Defense intelligence officials to review and strengthen vetting procedures .
On Monday , Attorney General William Barr declared the shooting in Pensacola was an act of terrorism motivated by `` jihadist ideology . ''
Feds vs. Apple : DOJ says Apple has n't helped unlock Pensacola shooter 's iPhones .
Apple says it only asked a week ago .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 21 , fired on service members at the base on Dec. 6 , killing three American service members and injuring eight others .
Alshamrani was killed as well .
On Sept. 11 last year , Alshamrani posted on social media that `` the countdown has begun . ''
He visited the 9/11 Memorial in New York City over Thanksgiving weekend , and he posted `` anti-American , anti-Israeli and jihadi messages '' on social media two hours before the attack , Barr said .
Under the new guidelines , military officials will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential danger , according to a Defense Department official who was not authorized to speak publicly .
Alshamrani was one of 5,180 foreign students from 153 countries , including 852 Saudi nationals , in the U.S. for military training .
Many operate military hardware that foreign governments buy from the United States .
Saudi Arabia is the world ’ s largest customer for arms , and many of those are American-made .
Since the program began , the Pentagon has trained more than 1 million foreign military students without an incident as serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official said .
Barr dismissed reports that the shooter may have been assisted by other Saudi cadets .
They happened to be in the area and took videos of the chaos after the shooting , and they cooperated with investigators , Barr said .
Although there 's no evidence Saudi military trainees were involved in the attack or had advance knowledge of it , 21 trainees expressed derogatory sentiments about the United States , according to Barr .
At least 15 of them were found in possession of child pornography during the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training program and returned to Saudi Arabia .
No other foreign military students were disqualified after the review , the official said .

Pentagon to restrict, monitor foreign trainees to prevent repeat of Pensacola Navy base shooting
Show Caption Hide Caption Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting: Barr confirms 'act of terrorism' U.S. Attorney General William Barr confirmed the December shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station was an "act of terrorism." USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon has developed new guidelines for vetting foreign military trainees after a shooting that killed three at a Pensacola Navy base in December, Defense Department officials announced Friday.
The new rules include restrictions on possession and use of firearms, access to bases and travel while off duty. Foreign military students will be continuously monitored while they are enrolled in training, said Garry Reid, a Defense intelligence official.
"When these procedures are in place, the military departments will be authorized to fully resume training that has been suspended since the attack in Pensacola," Reid said.
Days after the attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola, the Navy grounded more than 300 Saudi nationals who were training to be pilots. Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist ordered Defense intelligence officials to review and strengthen vetting procedures.
On Monday, Attorney General William Barr declared the shooting in Pensacola was an act of terrorism motivated by "jihadist ideology."
Feds vs. Apple: DOJ says Apple hasn't helped unlock Pensacola shooter's iPhones. Apple says it only asked a week ago.
Apple refuses to unlock Pensacola shooter’s iPhones in a fight with FBI Apple has reopened a privacy battle with the FBI after refusing to unlock the iPhones of the Saudi pilot who opened fire at Naval Air Station Pensacola Buzz60
A Saudi pilot, 2nd Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, 21, fired on service members at the base on Dec. 6, killing three American service members and injuring eight others. Alshamrani was killed as well.
On Sept. 11 last year, Alshamrani posted on social media that "the countdown has begun." He visited the 9/11 Memorial in New York City over Thanksgiving weekend, and he posted "anti-American, anti-Israeli and jihadi messages" on social media two hours before the attack, Barr said.
Under the new guidelines, military officials will continuously monitor foreign students for indicators of potential danger, according to a Defense Department official who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Alshamrani was one of 5,180 foreign students from 153 countries, including 852 Saudi nationals, in the U.S. for military training. Many operate military hardware that foreign governments buy from the United States. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest customer for arms, and many of those are American-made.
Since the program began, the Pentagon has trained more than 1 million foreign military students without an incident as serious as the shooting in Pensacola, the official said.
Barr dismissed reports that the shooter may have been assisted by other Saudi cadets. They happened to be in the area and took videos of the chaos after the shooting, and they cooperated with investigators, Barr said.
Although there's no evidence Saudi military trainees were involved in the attack or had advance knowledge of it, 21 trainees expressed derogatory sentiments about the United States, according to Barr. At least 15 of them were found in possession of child pornography during the investigation.
All have been expelled from the training program and returned to Saudi Arabia.
No other foreign military students were disqualified after the review, the official said.


usatoday--2020-01-17--Susan Collins is now least popular senator, facing reelection

Senator Susan Collins ' disapproval rating is lowest among all senators The Maine senator 's net approval rating has dropped @ @ @ @ @ of September , leaving her with a 52 percent disapproval rating .

Senator Susan Collins' disapproval rating is lowest among all senators
The Maine senator's net approval rating has dropped 10 points since the end of September, leaving her with a 52 percent disapproval rating.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-17--Hillary Clinton: 'Lord knows what will happen if we don't retire' Trump

PASADENA , Calif. – Hillary Clinton had one simple , straightforward piece of advice for voters in the quickly approaching Democratic presidential primaries .
`` Try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win , '' the former secretary of State and U.S. senator told the Television Critics Association Friday .
`` And not just the popular vote , the Electoral College '' she said , looking back to the 2016 election , when she won the former but lost the latter ( and presidency ) to Donald Trump .
Clinton was promoting `` Hillary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 6 , after the early primaries and Super Tuesday , March 3 .
Clinton never mentioned Trump by name during a half-hour Q & A , but her warning was explicit .
`` “ I want people to take their vote really , really seriously , because Lord knows what will happen if we don ’ t retire the current incumbent and his henchmen , as Nancy Pelosi so well describes them , ” a point she 's made in the past .
Debriefing : Hillary Clinton talks Trump , Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview She said people should n't let confusion deter them from participating in the political process .
`` Vote .
Please vote .
It is almost a truism to say that we can look at what 's happening politically ( and ) be so discouraged , so frustrated , even disgusted , that it turns you off .
Why contribute to that craziness ? ''
she said .
However , she added , we could return to a world that was n't that crazy , recalling a time not so long ago `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did n't have to worry every morning when we woke up about what was going to happen that day or what crazy tweet would threaten war or some awful outcome . ''
Clinton talked about larger elements of living in a `` fraught time '' that makes the voting even more important in an election with `` such profound impact . ''
Political plan : As House votes to impeach Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton pledges to help Democrats 'retire the incumbent' '' I am on the side of an inclusive , generous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future ( to ) make difficult choices .
We ’ re in a real struggle with a form of politics that is incredibly negative , exclusive , mean-spirited , '' she said , `` and it ’ s going to be up to every voter , not only people who vote in Democratic primaries , to recognize this is no ordinary time.
” Later , she underlined that sentiment : `` We are living in such a transformational age , and whether it ends up on the high or low side , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She expressed concerns about a society that ca n't agree on basic facts and the ability of social media to amplify anger and outrage , saying politics `` is exacerbated in the realm of social media .
… You can disagree with facts , but there are facts . ''
She reflected on the public 's perception of her career and life , dealt with in `` Hillary , '' which is directed by Nanette Burstein and based on 35 hours of interviews with Clinton .
`` I did n't do a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the perceptions that were out there , '' she said .
`` It was quite common for people who knew me … to shake their heads at the way I was portrayed . ''
And while she would `` blow it off , brush it off , '' she said , `` perhaps I could have and should have found ways to better present myself and deal with misperceptions that were out there , '' she said .
But self-policing statements can lead to being `` more cautious and more careful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vicious cycle . ''

Hillary Clinton: 'Lord knows what will happen if we don't retire' Trump
PASADENA, Calif. – Hillary Clinton had one simple, straightforward piece of advice for voters in the quickly approaching Democratic presidential primaries.
"Try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win," the former secretary of State and U.S. senator told the Television Critics Association Friday.
"And not just the popular vote, the Electoral College" she said, looking back to the 2016 election, when she won the former but lost the latter (and presidency) to Donald Trump.
Clinton was promoting "Hillary," a Hulu four-part documentary series due March 6, after the early primaries and Super Tuesday, March 3.
Clinton never mentioned Trump by name during a half-hour Q&A, but her warning was explicit. "“I want people to take their vote really, really seriously, because Lord knows what will happen if we don’t retire the current incumbent and his henchmen, as Nancy Pelosi so well describes them,” a point she's made in the past.
Debriefing: Hillary Clinton talks Trump, Graham, Sanders and sexuality in new Howard Stern interview
She said people shouldn't let confusion deter them from participating in the political process.
"Vote. Please vote. It is almost a truism to say that we can look at what's happening politically (and) be so discouraged, so frustrated, even disgusted, that it turns you off. Why contribute to that craziness?" she said.
However, she added, we could return to a world that wasn't that crazy, recalling a time not so long ago "when we had a president where we didn't have to worry every morning when we woke up about what was going to happen that day or what crazy tweet would threaten war or some awful outcome."
Clinton talked about larger elements of living in a "fraught time" that makes the voting even more important in an election with "such profound impact."
Political plan: As House votes to impeach Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton pledges to help Democrats 'retire the incumbent'
"I am on the side of an inclusive, generous, open-hearted country that faces up to the future (to) make difficult choices. We’re in a real struggle with a form of politics that is incredibly negative, exclusive, mean-spirited," she said, "and it’s going to be up to every voter, not only people who vote in Democratic primaries, to recognize this is no ordinary time.”
Later, she underlined that sentiment: "We are living in such a transformational age, and whether it ends up on the high or low side, we're not clear yet."
She expressed concerns about a society that can't agree on basic facts and the ability of social media to amplify anger and outrage, saying politics "is exacerbated in the realm of social media. … You can disagree with facts, but there are facts."
She reflected on the public's perception of her career and life, dealt with in "Hillary," which is directed by Nanette Burstein and based on 35 hours of interviews with Clinton.
"I didn't do a good enough job to break through a lot of the perceptions that were out there," she said. "It was quite common for people who knew me … to shake their heads at the way I was portrayed."
And while she would "blow it off, brush it off," she said, "perhaps I could have and should have found ways to better present myself and deal with misperceptions that were out there," she said. But self-policing statements can lead to being "more cautious and more careful and more guarded," creating "a vicious cycle."


usatoday--2020-01-17--OnPolitics: The historic days aren't over

And the Senate is about to start the trial of the president of the United States for the third time in our nation 's history .
Welcome back to OnPolitics .
We 're assuming you missed us .
On Thursday , Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts donned his judicial robe and was sworn in to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
He then recited the trial oath and senators were sworn in for their roles as jurors .
`` Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the United States now pending , you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws , so help you God ? ''
Roberts asked .
Impartial justice .
That 's been a hot topic as the impeachment process has moved forward .
Are any of the senators impartial ?
For his part , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said no .
`` I 'm not an impartial juror .
This is a political process .
There 's not anything judicial about it , '' he told reporters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some questions .
Like , why are we still saying `` hear ye , hear ye '' and does n't the Supreme Court need John Roberts ?
We 've got your answers so you can look super smart .
But wait , there 's more .
At the heart of the impeachment is whether Trump abused the power of his office by asking the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , while Trump withheld a White House meeting and nearly $ 400 million in military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Lev Parnas .
Parnas is accused of having assisted in that campaign to pressure Ukraine , and on Wednesday night , said `` President Trump knew exactly what was going on . ''
Now , is he to be believed , or is he trying to save himself ?
Parnas is indeed charged with federal campaign finance violations and faces prison time .
As for the aid to Ukraine the White House held up ?
The Government Accountability Office declared Thursday that the White House budget office broke the law by not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , '' the report says .
But what 's going to happen ?
This type of violation has no criminal penalty , so the GAO would have to file a civil lawsuit , which has only happened one other time .
In other words , do n't hold your breath .

OnPolitics: The historic days aren't over
Show Caption Hide Caption 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
We're back. We're caffeinated.
And the Senate is about to start the trial of the president of the United States for the third time in our nation's history.
Welcome back to OnPolitics. We're assuming you missed us.
On Thursday, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts donned his judicial robe and was sworn in to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. He then recited the trial oath and senators were sworn in for their roles as jurors.
"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?" Roberts asked.
Impartial justice. That's been a hot topic as the impeachment process has moved forward. Are any of the senators impartial? For his part, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said no.
"I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it," he told reporters in December.
So, you probably have some questions. Like, why are we still saying "hear ye, hear ye" and doesn't the Supreme Court need John Roberts? We've got your answers so you can look super smart.
But wait, there's more.
At the heart of the impeachment is whether Trump abused the power of his office by asking the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while Trump withheld a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in military aid.
One piece in that puzzle? Lev Parnas.
Parnas is accused of having assisted in that campaign to pressure Ukraine, and on Wednesday night, said "President Trump knew exactly what was going on." Now, is he to be believed, or is he trying to save himself? Parnas is indeed charged with federal campaign finance violations and faces prison time.
As for the aid to Ukraine the White House held up? The Government Accountability Office declared Thursday that the White House budget office broke the law by not releasing it. "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law," the report says.
But what's going to happen? This type of violation has no criminal penalty, so the GAO would have to file a civil lawsuit, which has only happened one other time. In other words, don't hold your breath.


Weird impeachment questions

The third impeachment trial of a U.S. president kicked off Thursday in Washington , and President Donald Trump is the defendant .
The Constitution stipulates that , if any federal official commits `` high crimes or misdemeanors , '' the House of Representatives is empowered to impeach – formally charge – that official .
The House voted Wednesday afternoon to formally send the impeachment charges against Trump to the Senate .
Trump 's fate sits with the Senate , where a conviction would mean removal from office .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven House members to serve as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial .
As the trial begins , here are answers to the questions you may be wondering : Why do they say , `` hear ye , hear ye '' and use old English during impeachment proceedings ?
Senate rules are explicit in providing details for an impeachment trial .
The trial will begin with the proclamation “ Hear ye !
Hear ye !
Hear ye !
All persons are commanded to keep silent , on pain of imprisonment , while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Translation : Be quiet and pay attention .
Senators were required to be at their desks while the articles of impeachment were read by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. A summary of the day 's impeachment news : Right to your inbox !
Sign up for On Politics here After the House managers brought the articles of impeachment to the Senate , the Supreme Court 's chief justice was summoned to the Senate .
The Supreme Court is right across the street from the Capitol , but plans call for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial each day , escorted by a court security detail , a court spokesperson said .
On Thursday , four senators escorted him into the Senate chamber , where Roberts took an oath before administering an oath to the assembled senators .
What will John Roberts do ?
Under Article I , section 3 of the Constitution , the chief justice of the Supreme Court must preside over the Senate trial .
That means Roberts , appointed to the nation 's highest court by George W. Bush , is in charge .
Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence , '' under Senate rules , which could give him sway on controversial calls such as whether former national security adviser John Bolton will testify .
The hitch is that the Senate can overrule him .
His role could end up being mostly ceremonial .
More impeachment : As Trump 's impeachment process moves to the Senate , here 's how it will all work Does n't the Supreme Court need their leader ?
Roberts will have a tight but manageable schedule .
Oral arguments are scheduled next Tuesday and Wednesday mornings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late February .
And the trial wo n't start until 1 p.m. each day .
Why did Nancy Pelosi use so many pens ?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used scores of pens to sign her name on the impeachment articles .
Using multiple pens for signing important U.S. documents is nothing new .
The pens are given out as keepsakes for historic events .
How long will this impeachment trial last ?
The trial will really get underway Tuesday , after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday .
Sen. Mitch McConnell , R-Ky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he hopes to wrap it up in about two weeks .
But the length of the trial will depend on how many witnesses , if any , are called .
The Senate has not determined whether it will call witnesses or include new evidence uncovered in the case .
The last such trial , for President Bill Clinton , lasted about five weeks .
Is Trump going to show up ?
Probably not , although Trump said in November he would `` strongly consider '' facing his accusers .
His tweet : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and don ’ t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax , I like the idea & will , in order to get Congress focused again , strongly consider it ! ''
Lev Parnas is a Ukraine-born associate of Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s lawyer .
He sparked controversy by claiming that “ President Trump knew exactly what was going on '' during the White House 's alleged pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
Parnas said Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the work he did on their behalf in Ukraine .

Old English, Pelosi's many pens and special walks: Your weird impeachment questions, answered
Show Caption Hide Caption The Senate impeachment trial begins with articles move to the Senate The Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump has officially begun, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, and much yet to decide. Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY
The third impeachment trial of a U.S. president kicked off Thursday in Washington, and President Donald Trump is the defendant.
The Constitution stipulates that, if any federal official commits "high crimes or misdemeanors," the House of Representatives is empowered to impeach – formally charge – that official. The House voted Wednesday afternoon to formally send the impeachment charges against Trump to the Senate.
Trump's fate sits with the Senate, where a conviction would mean removal from office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven House members to serve as "managers," essentially prosecutors, for the trial.
As the trial begins, here are answers to the questions you may be wondering:
Why do they say, "hear ye, hear ye" and use old English during impeachment proceedings?
Senate rules are explicit in providing details for an impeachment trial. The trial will begin with the proclamation “Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment." Translation: Be quiet and pay attention. Senators were required to be at their desks while the articles of impeachment were read by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
A summary of the day's impeachment news: Right to your inbox! Sign up for On Politics here
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
Will Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walk to trial sessions?
After the House managers brought the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Supreme Court's chief justice was summoned to the Senate. The Supreme Court is right across the street from the Capitol, but plans call for Roberts to go by car to the trial each day, escorted by a court security detail, a court spokesperson said. On Thursday, four senators escorted him into the Senate chamber, where Roberts took an oath before administering an oath to the assembled senators.
What will John Roberts do?
Under Article I, section 3 of the Constitution, the chief justice of the Supreme Court must preside over the Senate trial. That means Roberts, appointed to the nation's highest court by George W. Bush, is in charge. Roberts "may rule on all questions of evidence," under Senate rules, which could give him sway on controversial calls such as whether former national security adviser John Bolton will testify. The hitch is that the Senate can overrule him. His role could end up being mostly ceremonial.
More impeachment: As Trump's impeachment process moves to the Senate, here's how it will all work
Doesn't the Supreme Court need their leader?
Roberts will have a tight but manageable schedule. Oral arguments are scheduled next Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, then no more are set until late February. And the trial won't start until 1 p.m. each day.
Senate opens impeachment trial: Here's what to expect
Why did Nancy Pelosi use so many pens?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used scores of pens to sign her name on the impeachment articles. Using multiple pens for signing important U.S. documents is nothing new. The pens are given out as keepsakes for historic events.
How long will this impeachment trial last?
The trial will really get underway Tuesday, after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, the Senate Majority Leader, has said he hopes to wrap it up in about two weeks. But the length of the trial will depend on how many witnesses, if any, are called. The Senate has not determined whether it will call witnesses or include new evidence uncovered in the case. The last such trial, for President Bill Clinton, lasted about five weeks.
Is Trump going to show up?
Probably not, although Trump said in November he would "strongly consider" facing his accusers. His tweet: "Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!"
Who is Lev Parnas?
Lev Parnas is a Ukraine-born associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer. He sparked controversy by claiming that “President Trump knew exactly what was going on" during the White House's alleged pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Parnas said Trump and Giuliani were routinely informed of behind-the-scenes developments in the work he did on their behalf in Ukraine.
Contributing: Richard Wolf


usatoday--2020-01-18--House Democrats call Trump a 'danger' to U.S. national security in formal argument for his removal

WASHINGTON – Democrats who will prosecute the case against President Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial said there was `` overwhelming '' evidence that he was guilty of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and called him a danger to the country 's national security .
`` President Trump ’ s misconduct presents a danger to our democratic processes , our national security , and our commitment to the rule of law .
He must be removed from office , '' the seven House managers wrote a 111-page filing summarizing their opening arguments for the trial .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Senate on Saturday that the House impeachment drive is an attempt to overturn the 2016 election and that the two articles of impeachment are legally defective .
“ This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election – now just months away , ” the filing said .
The House document mirrored arguments made in previous reports by House Democrats in the impeachment process .
`` President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain , thereby jeopardizing our national security , the integrity of our elections , and our democracy .
And when the President got caught , he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House ’ s investigation into his misconduct , '' the House managers said .
Last week , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven House members as `` managers , '' or members who will lead the prosecution against Trump : Reps. Jason Crow , Sylvia Garcia , Hakeem Jeffries , Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler , Val Demings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairs the House Intelligence Committee , is the lead manager .
The two articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18 accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
More : President Trump 's impeachment : What are the steps in the Senate trial Democrats allege Trump abused his power by withholding nearly $ 400 million of security assistance and an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation of his political rivals , including former Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration stonewalled their inquiry into his conducted by refusing to allow key administration officials to testify and provide documents .
`` His effort to gain a personal political benefit by encouraging a foreign government to undermine America ’ s democratic process strikes at the core of misconduct that the Framers designed impeachment to protect against .
President Trump ’ s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office , '' the House managers wrote .
Democrats referenced the option the Senate has in calling former national security adviser John Bolton to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has offered to testify if subpoenaed .
Democrats argued that his testimony could help prove that American officials saw the pressure campaign as “ improper and political ” given the “ public reporting of his repeated , yet unsuccessful , efforts to convince the President to lift the hold ( on military aid to Ukraine ) .
” White House lawyers have a deadline of noon on Monday to file a brief outlining their argument defending the president , and Democrats will file another brief in response by noon Tuesday .
In their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption with his country .
They said concern about corruption is the reason the administration held up military aid temporarily and added that the money was eventually released in September .
Saying the president `` has done nothing wrong , '' spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said he `` looks forward to the end of this partisan and unconstitutional impeachment '' with an acquittal by the Senate .
Trump 's legal team also raised procedural complaints against the House impeachment , saying the president did not receive due process – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House refused to participate in the investigation .
The filing said the White House withheld witnesses and documents because the information is protected by executive privilege , and Congress is not entitled access to internal deliberations within the executive branch .
Within minutes of the filings , Trump tweeted out a claim about his popularity among Republicans and an attack on the Democratic presidential nomination process .

Nicholas Wu and David Jackson, USA TODAY

House Democrats call Trump a 'danger' to U.S. national security in formal argument for his removal
Show Caption Hide Caption Trump denies knowing Parnas as impeachment begins President Donald Trump denies knowing a close associate of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who is publicly claiming Trump was directly involved in the effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden. (Jan. 16) AP
WASHINGTON – Democrats who will prosecute the case against President Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial said there was "overwhelming" evidence that he was guilty of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and called him a danger to the country's national security.
"President Trump’s misconduct presents a danger to our democratic processes, our national security, and our commitment to the rule of law. He must be removed from office," the seven House managers wrote a 111-page filing summarizing their opening arguments for the trial.
Trump's new legal team, meanwhile, told the Senate on Saturday that the House impeachment drive is an attempt to overturn the 2016 election and that the two articles of impeachment are legally defective.
“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election – now just months away,” the filing said.
The House document mirrored arguments made in previous reports by House Democrats in the impeachment process.
"President Trump abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy. And when the President got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing the House’s investigation into his misconduct," the House managers said.
'Impartial justice': Can partisan senators be unbiased in Trump trial?
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven House members as "managers," or members who will lead the prosecution against Trump: Reps. Jason Crow, Sylvia Garcia, Hakeem Jeffries, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Val Demings, and Zoe Lofgren. Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is the lead manager.
The two articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18 accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
More: Impeachment week ahead: House, Trump to file written arguments before Senate trial resumes Tuesday
More: President Trump's impeachment: What are the steps in the Senate trial
Democrats allege Trump abused his power by withholding nearly $400 million of security assistance and an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation of his political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats said the Trump administration stonewalled their inquiry into his conducted by refusing to allow key administration officials to testify and provide documents.
"His effort to gain a personal political benefit by encouraging a foreign government to undermine America’s democratic process strikes at the core of misconduct that the Framers designed impeachment to protect against. President Trump’s abuse of power requires his conviction and removal from office," the House managers wrote.
Democrats referenced the option the Senate has in calling former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial. Bolton has offered to testify if subpoenaed. Democrats argued that his testimony could help prove that American officials saw the pressure campaign as “improper and political” given the “public reporting of his repeated, yet unsuccessful, efforts to convince the President to lift the hold (on military aid to Ukraine).”
White House lawyers have a deadline of noon on Monday to file a brief outlining their argument defending the president, and Democrats will file another brief in response by noon Tuesday.
In their Saturday filing, attorneys for Trump argued he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption with his country. They said concern about corruption is the reason the administration held up military aid temporarily and added that the money was eventually released in September.
Saying the president "has done nothing wrong," spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said he "looks forward to the end of this partisan and unconstitutional impeachment" with an acquittal by the Senate.
Trump's legal team also raised procedural complaints against the House impeachment, saying the president did not receive due process – though House members repeatedly pointed out that the White House refused to participate in the investigation.
The filing said the White House withheld witnesses and documents because the information is protected by executive privilege, and Congress is not entitled access to internal deliberations within the executive branch.
Within minutes of the filings, Trump tweeted out a claim about his popularity among Republicans and an attack on the Democratic presidential nomination process.


usatoday--2020-01-18--Space is pitch black, so why will US Space Force members wear camo uniforms?

The void of space is pitch black with pinpoints of distant light .
So why will some members of the newly-formed U.S. Space Force be clothed in green and brown camouflage ?
It 's a question that many asked on social media after the Space Force tweeted a photo of its utility uniform on Friday .
`` Camo in space ? ''
one commenter wrote , musing about wasted taxpayer dollars .
The Space Force had a quick answer : The service members wearing the uniform will be working on the ground , and using existing uniform designs is saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official Space Force Twitter account said the uniforms will be worn by Space Operators , working from Earth alongside service members in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army .
Watch : Gen. Raymond sworn in as Chief of Space Operations The Space Force was established in December after President Donald Trump had long said it was a necessary part of the U.S. military , citing threats from China and Russia and the nation ’ s reliance on satellites for defense operations .
`` Space Com will defend America 's vital interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Trump told reporters in August .
`` The dangers to our country constantly evolve , and so must we . ''
Trump said U.S. adversaries are weaponizing `` Earth 's orbits with new technology targeting American satellites . ''

Space is pitch black, so why will US Space Force members wear camo uniforms?
Show Caption Hide Caption Gen. Raymond sworn in as Chief of Space Operations Vice President Mike Pence officiated over the swearing in ceremony Tuesday of the first ever Chief of Space Operations for the new U.S. Space Force, Gen. John Raymond. (Jan. 14) AP
The void of space is pitch black with pinpoints of distant light. So why will some members of the newly-formed U.S. Space Force be clothed in green and brown camouflage?
It's a question that many asked on social media after the Space Force tweeted a photo of its utility uniform on Friday.
"Camo in space?" one commenter wrote, musing about wasted taxpayer dollars.
The Space Force had a quick answer: The service members wearing the uniform will be working on the ground, and using existing uniform designs is saving taxpayer dollars.
In another explanation, the official Space Force Twitter account said the uniforms will be worn by Space Operators, working from Earth alongside service members in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army.
Watch: Gen. Raymond sworn in as Chief of Space Operations
Background: Trump signs defense bill that creates Space Force
The Space Force was established in December after President Donald Trump had long said it was a necessary part of the U.S. military, citing threats from China and Russia and the nation’s reliance on satellites for defense operations.
"Space Com will defend America's vital interest in space, the next war-fighting domain," Trump told reporters in August. "The dangers to our country constantly evolve, and so must we."
Trump said U.S. adversaries are weaponizing "Earth's orbits with new technology targeting American satellites."
Contributing: John Fritze


usatoday--2020-01-18--FBI: Saudi government 'almost certainly' helps citizens accused of serious crimes escape from US

According to a newly released and declassified eight-page memo from the FBI , the government of Saudi Arabia `` almost certainly '' helps its citizens accused of serious crimes flee from the United States .
Most of the document is redacted , but the FBI said the Saudi government `` undermines the U.S. judicial process '' by assisting with the escape of citizens accused of offenses ranging from traffic violations to more serious felonies like `` rape , child pornography , and manslaughter . ''
It said it made the assessment of the issue with `` high confidence . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI claimed , to avoid the embarrassment of `` Saudi citizens enduring the U.S. judicial process '' and is not likely to change the practice without pressure from the U.S .
The documents were released as part of a request to the FBI by Sens .
Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden , both Democrats from Oregon .
In response to investigative reporting from the Oregonian , Wyden sponsored legislation requiring the FBI to reveal information about Saudi assistance of fugitives .
The bill became law in December .
More : President Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate trial The Oregonian estimated that about two dozen Saudi citizens accused of serious crimes have fled the U.S .
The White House and State Department referred questions to the Department of Justice and the FBI .
The FBI said it had no further comment on the materials already released to Congress .
If Saudi citizens accused of crimes end up fleeing , it 's difficult for the U.S. to bring them to justice since the Saudi government and the U.S. government do not have an extradition treaty .
Merkley accused the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests and of failing to press the issue with the Saudi government .
“ The Saudi Government is almost certainly helping its citizens escape American justice , while the Trump administration sits on its hands , ” Wyden said in a statement .
More : President Trump 's impeachment : What are the steps in the Senate trial '' The FBI also made clear that the Saudis won ’ t change their behavior without direct engagement from the U.S. government – engagement that needs to happen at senior levels until justice is served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to keep pushing for answers and accountability , and to make it clear to the Saudi government that we will not allow Saudis to bypass our laws .
”

FBI: Saudi government 'almost certainly' helps citizens accused of serious crimes escape from US
Show Caption Hide Caption Jamal Khashoggi killing: Saudi Arabian court sentences 5 to death The court issued the sentences for the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in Istanbul by a team of Saudi agents. USA TODAY
According to a newly released and declassified eight-page memo from the FBI, the government of Saudi Arabia "almost certainly" helps its citizens accused of serious crimes flee from the United States.
Most of the document is redacted, but the FBI said the Saudi government "undermines the U.S. judicial process" by assisting with the escape of citizens accused of offenses ranging from traffic violations to more serious felonies like "rape, child pornography, and manslaughter."
It said it made the assessment of the issue with "high confidence."
The Saudi government does this, the FBI claimed, to avoid the embarrassment of "Saudi citizens enduring the U.S. judicial process" and is not likely to change the practice without pressure from the U.S.
The documents were released as part of a request to the FBI by Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, both Democrats from Oregon. In response to investigative reporting from the Oregonian, Wyden sponsored legislation requiring the FBI to reveal information about Saudi assistance of fugitives. The bill became law in December.
Impeachment week ahead: House, Trump to file written arguments before Senate trial resumes Tuesday
More: President Trump's impeachment: What are the steps in the Senate trial
The Oregonian estimated that about two dozen Saudi citizens accused of serious crimes have fled the U.S.
The White House and State Department referred questions to the Department of Justice and the FBI. The FBI said it had no further comment on the materials already released to Congress.
If Saudi citizens accused of crimes end up fleeing, it's difficult for the U.S. to bring them to justice since the Saudi government and the U.S. government do not have an extradition treaty.
Merkley accused the Trump administration of "stonewalling" information requests and of failing to press the issue with the Saudi government.
“The Saudi Government is almost certainly helping its citizens escape American justice, while the Trump administration sits on its hands,” Wyden said in a statement.
More: President Trump's impeachment: What are the steps in the Senate trial
"The FBI also made clear that the Saudis won’t change their behavior without direct engagement from the U.S. government – engagement that needs to happen at senior levels until justice is served," Merkley said. "We’re going to keep pushing for answers and accountability, and to make it clear to the Saudi government that we will not allow Saudis to bypass our laws.”


usatoday--2020-01-18--National Archives apologizes for blurring picture of anti-Trump Women's March signs

The National Archives , which contains some of the country 's founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution , apologized for blurring parts of an image from the 2017 Women 's March critical of President Donald Trump .
`` We apologize , and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again , '' the National Archives Twitter account wrote .
The Archives said the photo was `` not an archival record '' and was instead a photo used as a promotional graphic for an exhibit on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March took place on Jan. 21 , 2017 , a day after Trump was inaugurated as president , and was in part a protest of Trump 's past controversial statements about women .
The original photo , a wide shot of the March going down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington , D.C. by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama , was the promotional display for an exhibit on women 's suffrage .
According to a photo comparison published by the Washington Post , the version of the photo on display in the National Archives had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the signs , as well as references to female genitalia .
The controversy erupted on the same day as the latest Women 's March attracted thousands in the nation 's capital .
More : 'The decade that ushers in new freedom ' : Women 's March draws thousands across US The editing of the image was heavily criticized on social media .
Kristen Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , slammed the editing as `` Soviet-style censorship and silencing of voices of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called it an attempt to `` airbrush history . ''
`` Info integrity is at stake , '' said historian Karin Wulf .

National Archives apologizes for blurring picture of anti-Trump Women's March signs
Show Caption Hide Caption National Archives blurs anti-Trump signs in Women's March photo The National Archives blurred anti-Trump signs in a Women's March photo. It later apologized. GeoBeats, Video Elephant
The National Archives, which contains some of the country's founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, apologized for blurring parts of an image from the 2017 Women's March critical of President Donald Trump.
"We apologize, and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again," the National Archives Twitter account wrote.
The Archives said the photo was "not an archival record" and was instead a photo used as a promotional graphic for an exhibit on women's suffrage.
The Women's March took place on Jan. 21, 2017, a day after Trump was inaugurated as president, and was in part a protest of Trump's past controversial statements about women.
The original photo, a wide shot of the March going down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama, was the promotional display for an exhibit on women's suffrage. According to a photo comparison published by the Washington Post, the version of the photo on display in the National Archives had blurred out the anti-Trump slogans of some of the signs, as well as references to female genitalia.
The controversy erupted on the same day as the latest Women's March attracted thousands in the nation's capital.
More: 'The decade that ushers in new freedom': Women's March draws thousands across US
We made a mistake.
As the National Archives of the United States, we are and have always been completely committed to preserving our archival holdings, without alteration. pic.twitter.com/VTWOS4R7GY — US National Archives (@USNatArchives) January 18, 2020
The editing of the image was heavily criticized on social media.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, slammed the editing as "Soviet-style censorship and silencing of voices of dissent."
The US National Archives digitally altering and manipulating photos from the Women’s March is further evidence of the death of democracy. This is Soviet-style censorship and silencing of voices of dissent. pic.twitter.com/lmFAGjQ4zO — Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) January 18, 2020
The ACLU Twitter account called it an attempt to "airbrush history."
The government can’t airbrush history or erase women’s bodies from it. It is the job of the National Archives to document history, not alter it to serve the president’s ego. https://t.co/DlCGVnnEkk — ACLU (@ACLU) January 18, 2020
"Info integrity is at stake," said historian Karin Wulf.