dailysignal--2020-01-28--‘Danger, Danger, Danger’: 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial

President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers briskly completed final arguments against removing their client from office Tuesday , taking a fraction of the 24 hours allotted to them in the Senate impeachment trial .
Their wrapup Tuesday after less than two hours—following two hours Saturday and eight hours Monday—was a stark contrast from House Democrats ’ impeachment managers .
The Democrats logged three marathon days in the Senate , arguing for more than 21 hours in all for Trump ’ s ouster for abusing his power and obstructing Congress in connection with a July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to submit questions in writing for the prosecution and defense teams to answer for up to eight hours Wednesday and Thursday .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , announced late Tuesday that Democrats so far may have enough Republican votes to call witnesses in the trial .
Here are highlights of the Trump team ’ s closing arguments .
During their phone conversation in July , Trump and Zelenskyy briefly discussed Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine ’ s investigating the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger Biden joined the board of Burisma , a Ukrainian energy firm , while his father was President Barack Obama ’ s point man on Ukraine policy .
Trump also told Zelenskyy that he would like Ukraine to investigate whether that nation interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election .
At the time , Ukraine ’ s president didn ’ t know that Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million in military aid , which he would release in September .
Early on Tuesday , Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a Ukraine-related passage in former Trump national security adviser John Bolton ’ s forthcoming book .
The book , The New York Times and others reported , will say that Trump told Bolton he put a hold on the military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the former Soviet republic to investigate the Bidens .
“ You can not impeach a president on unsourced allegations , ” Sekulow said .
He cited another of Trump ’ s lawyers , Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz , who said the night before that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to the level of impeachment .
“ I want to be clear on this , because there is a lot of speculation out there , ” Sekulow said .
“ With regard to what John Bolton has said … here ’ s what the president said , in response to that New York Times piece : ‘ I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats , including the Bidens.
’ ” Sekulow was reading from Trump ’ s tweeted response to the Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hamilton ’ s sentiment on cautious impeachments .
“ What we are involved in here as we conclude is the most solemn of duties under our constitutional framework : the trial of the leader of the free world and the duly elected president of the United States .
It is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts , ” Sekulow said .
“ Hamilton put impeachment in the hands of this body , the Senate , precisely and specifically to be above that fray , ” he said .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House counsel Pat Cipollone gave the last argument , in which he made the case against continuing the trial with witnesses .
Cipollone called on senators to end what another Trump lawyer had called the “ era of impeachment ” on Monday .
“ The Senate can not allow this to happen , ” the White House counsel said , adding : “ This should end now , as quickly as possible .
Reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people.
” Sekulow argued that impeaching and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment that do not allege a crime is a dangerous path to establish for future presidents .
He said the words “ danger , danger , danger ” at several points in his closing argument .
“ In our presentation so far , you have now heard from legal scholars from a variety of schools of thought , from a variety of political backgrounds .
But they do have a common theme with a dire warning : danger , danger , danger , ” Sekulow said .
Sekulow said future presidents could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office ” if the Senate allows the impeachment standard for Trump to stand .
“ To lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that Constitution for generations , ” he said .
Specifically , Sekulow said , this could intrude on a president ’ s foreign policy by giving the legislative branch veto power if lawmakers question a president ’ s intentions : Sekulow stressed that elections are supposed to determine the next president .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected president of the United States , and you ’ re being asked to do it in an election year , ” he said , adding : Elections are the reason a president runs the executive branch and not executive branch employees who work for a president , White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin said in making the first arguments of the day .
“ For two centuries , the president has been regarded as the sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs .
So the idea that we are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong subjective motives by comparing what he did to the recommendations of some interagency consensus among staffers is fundamentally anti-constitutional , ” Philbin told the senators .
The House Intelligence Committee ’ s impeachment report to the House Judiciary Committee criticized Trump for acting in his own interest when he did not follow the recommendations of foreign policy advisers regarding his conversation with Zelenskyy .
“ It inverts the constitutional structure .
It ’ s also fundamentally anti-democratic because our system is rather unique in the amount of power that it gives to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding : The executive here has much more power than in a parliamentary system .
But part of the reason that a president can have that power is that he is directly , democratically accountable to the people .
There is an election every four years to ensure that the president stays democratically accountable to the people .
But those staffers in the supposed interagency who have their meetings and make recommendations to the president are not accountable to the people .
There is no democratic legitimacy or accountability to their decisions or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the head of the executive branch .
That is why he has the authority to actually set policy and make determinations regardless of what the staffers may recommend .
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas : Under Bolton Shadow , 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial 5 Big Points by Trump ’ s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial 7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment @

President Donald Trump’s lawyers briskly completed final arguments against removing their client from office Tuesday, taking a fraction of the 24 hours allotted to them in the Senate impeachment trial.
Their wrapup Tuesday after less than two hours—following two hours Saturday and eight hours Monday—was a stark contrast from House Democrats’ impeachment managers.
The Democrats logged three marathon days in the Senate, arguing for more than 21 hours in all for Trump’s ouster for abusing his power and obstructing Congress in connection with a July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Next, senators will be able to submit questions in writing for the prosecution and defense teams to answer for up to eight hours Wednesday and Thursday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced late Tuesday that Democrats so far may have enough Republican votes to call witnesses in the trial.
Here are highlights of the Trump team’s closing arguments.
1. Bolton and ‘Unsourced Allegations’
During their phone conversation in July, Trump and Zelenskyy briefly discussed Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
The younger Biden joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, while his father was President Barack Obama’s point man on Ukraine policy.
Trump also told Zelenskyy that he would like Ukraine to investigate whether that nation interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
At the time, Ukraine’s president didn’t know that Trump had put a hold on $391 million in military aid, which he would release in September.
Early on Tuesday, Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow took on revelations reported over the past day about a Ukraine-related passage in former Trump national security adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book.
The book, The New York Times and others reported, will say that Trump told Bolton he put a hold on the military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the former Soviet republic to investigate the Bidens.
“You cannot impeach a president on unsourced allegations,” Sekulow said.
He cited another of Trump’s lawyers, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who said the night before that even if true, the incident did not rise to the level of impeachment.
“I want to be clear on this, because there is a lot of speculation out there,” Sekulow said. “With regard to what John Bolton has said … here’s what the president said, in response to that New York Times piece: ‘I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.’”
Sekulow was reading from Trump’s tweeted response to the Times’ story Sunday. He also invoked Alexander Hamilton’s sentiment on cautious impeachments.
“What we are involved in here as we conclude is the most solemn of duties under our constitutional framework: the trial of the leader of the free world and the duly elected president of the United States. It is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts,” Sekulow said.
“Hamilton put impeachment in the hands of this body, the Senate, precisely and specifically to be above that fray,” he said. “This is the greatest deliberative body on Earth.”
2. End ‘Era of Impeachment’
White House counsel Pat Cipollone gave the last argument, in which he made the case against continuing the trial with witnesses.
Cipollone called on senators to end what another Trump lawyer had called the “era of impeachment” on Monday.
“The Senate cannot allow this to happen,” the White House counsel said, adding: “This should end now, as quickly as possible. Reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people.”
3. ‘Danger, Danger, Danger’
Sekulow argued that impeaching and removing a president through two articles of impeachment that do not allege a crime is a dangerous path to establish for future presidents.
He said the words “danger, danger, danger” at several points in his closing argument.
“In our presentation so far, you have now heard from legal scholars from a variety of schools of thought, from a variety of political backgrounds. But they do have a common theme with a dire warning: danger, danger, danger,” Sekulow said.
Sekulow said future presidents could be “paralyzed from their first day in office” if the Senate allows the impeachment standard for Trump to stand.
“To lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that Constitution for generations,” he said.
Specifically, Sekulow said, this could intrude on a president’s foreign policy by giving the legislative branch veto power if lawmakers question a president’s intentions:
The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power—based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the president was interested only in helping himself–demonstrates the dangers of employing the vague, subjective, and politically malleable phrase ‘abuse of power’ as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.
4. Elections and the Executive Branch
Sekulow stressed that elections are supposed to determine the next president.
“You are being asked to remove a duly elected president of the United States, and you’re being asked to do it in an election year,” he said, adding:
There are some of you in this chamber right now that would rather be someplace else. That’s why we’ll be brief. Why would you rather be somewhere else? Because you’re running for the nomination of your party. I get it. But this is a serious deliberative situation.
Elections are the reason a president runs the executive branch and not executive branch employees who work for a president, White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin said in making the first arguments of the day.
“For two centuries, the president has been regarded as the sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs. So the idea that we are going to find out when the president had the wrong subjective motives by comparing what he did to the recommendations of some interagency consensus among staffers is fundamentally anti-constitutional,” Philbin told the senators.
The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report to the House Judiciary Committee criticized Trump for acting in his own interest when he did not follow the recommendations of foreign policy advisers regarding his conversation with Zelenskyy.
“It inverts the constitutional structure. It’s also fundamentally anti-democratic because our system is rather unique in the amount of power that it gives to the president,” Philbin said, adding:
The executive here has much more power than in a parliamentary system. But part of the reason that a president can have that power is that he is directly, democratically accountable to the people. There is an election every four years to ensure that the president stays democratically accountable to the people. But those staffers in the supposed interagency who have their meetings and make recommendations to the president are not accountable to the people. There is no democratic legitimacy or accountability to their decisions or recommendations. That is why the president is the head of the executive branch. That is why he has the authority to actually set policy and make determinations regardless of what the staffers may recommend.
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas:
Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-01-29--How the House’s Handling of Impeachment Hurts the American People

Whether the American people yet realize it or not , the House ’ s handling of the impeachment of President Donald Trump has inflicted serious damage on America ’ s constitutional system of government and threatened the very safety of our nation .
The partisan nature of this particular impeachment will end up weakening not just Trump , but the office of the presidency .
Every future president—Democrat and Republican—will be second-guessing his or her decisions to avoid crossing members of Congress and being threatened with impeachment based on the flimsiest of evidence .
The latest alleged revelations from former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t change the fact that last week , both lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer admitted that the House voted to impeach the president without the evidence to prove he was guilty , demanding that the Senate call witnesses so they could do more evidence gathering .
When Congress uses impeachment as a political weapon , it has the potential of stripping an enormous amount of constitutional authority from the presidency and shifting it to Congress .
The House has created a precedent where future executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Congress before carrying them out—even decisions that are solely in the president ’ s purview .
The delay created while a president attempts to seek consent from Congress could cost American lives when quick , decisive actions are needed .
Just think of the kind of havoc that could be wrought when such permission-seeking ends up delaying military action necessary to stop an attack on an American embassy , when it prevents counterterrorism measures required to thwart an imminent terrorist threat at home , or when it delays federal help to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of citizens .
The office of the president has suffered additional long-term harm when one considers that when Trump chose to invoke executive privilege to prevent his staff from testifying in the impeachment hearings , the House charged him with “ obstruction of Congress.
” The long-held legal tradition of executive privilege allows a president to receive the best and frankest advice with which to make critical governing decisions , giving him and his staff the freedom to fully explore all sides of an issue .
Throughout my career , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both state and federal government , and I will say that those deliberations can be very messy—but also very effective .
To function effectively , a president needs the ability to consult confidentially with his closest advisers .
Taking that privilege away severely limits a president ’ s ability to serve citizens , as his advisers will be deterred from providing frank advice for fear their communications will be shared with millions—including foreign powers and political adversaries—on the evening news .
If executive privilege is abused , Congress has the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his claims .
Yet the House failed to do that , perhaps surmising that , based on past precedent , the courts might disagree with it .
Instead , the House decided to charge the president with obstruction of Congress , despite the fact that executive privilege is a tool that many presidents have used and that the Supreme Court repeatedly has affirmed .
Impeaching a president for invoking executive privilege essentially guts this important tool .
The Constitution ’ s Framers were very concerned that impeachment would be used as a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They never meant it to be the “ no-confidence vote ” of parliamentary systems that create turmoil by changing leadership anytime such a vote is called .
Impeachment was meant for presidents who engaged in crimes so grievous that removing them from office couldn ’ t wait until the next election .
With this impeachment , the House has threatened our very constitutional system , effectively turning presidents into mere puppets of Congress , rejecting the idea of a separate and co-equal branch of government .
In doing so , the House has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balances the Framers crafted to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful .
The House also has made the American people the casualties in the process .
The mere threat of impeachment may be all that is needed to stop future presidents from implementing policies that they know are popular with the people but unpopular with the opposition party in the House .
In the worst-case scenarios , presidents who become paralyzed in their decision-making about national security and natural disasters could end up putting Americans in harm ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent of the damage that has been done .

Whether the American people yet realize it or not, the House’s handling of the impeachment of President Donald Trump has inflicted serious damage on America’s constitutional system of government and threatened the very safety of our nation.
The partisan nature of this particular impeachment will end up weakening not just Trump, but the office of the presidency. Every future president—Democrat and Republican—will be second-guessing his or her decisions to avoid crossing members of Congress and being threatened with impeachment based on the flimsiest of evidence.
The latest alleged revelations from former national security adviser John Bolton don’t change the fact that last week, both lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer admitted that the House voted to impeach the president without the evidence to prove he was guilty, demanding that the Senate call witnesses so they could do more evidence gathering.
When Congress uses impeachment as a political weapon, it has the potential of stripping an enormous amount of constitutional authority from the presidency and shifting it to Congress. The House has created a precedent where future executives will feel compelled to run major decisions by Congress before carrying them out—even decisions that are solely in the president’s purview.
The delay created while a president attempts to seek consent from Congress could cost American lives when quick, decisive actions are needed. Just think of the kind of havoc that could be wrought when such permission-seeking ends up delaying military action necessary to stop an attack on an American embassy, when it prevents counterterrorism measures required to thwart an imminent terrorist threat at home, or when it delays federal help to respond to a natural disaster threatening the lives of thousands of citizens.
The office of the president has suffered additional long-term harm when one considers that when Trump chose to invoke executive privilege to prevent his staff from testifying in the impeachment hearings, the House charged him with “obstruction of Congress.”
The long-held legal tradition of executive privilege allows a president to receive the best and frankest advice with which to make critical governing decisions, giving him and his staff the freedom to fully explore all sides of an issue.
Throughout my career, I was blessed to work in senior positions in both state and federal government, and I will say that those deliberations can be very messy—but also very effective.
To function effectively, a president needs the ability to consult confidentially with his closest advisers. Taking that privilege away severely limits a president’s ability to serve citizens, as his advisers will be deterred from providing frank advice for fear their communications will be shared with millions—including foreign powers and political adversaries—on the evening news.
If executive privilege is abused, Congress has the ability to take the president to court to challenge his claims. Yet the House failed to do that, perhaps surmising that, based on past precedent, the courts might disagree with it.
Instead, the House decided to charge the president with obstruction of Congress, despite the fact that executive privilege is a tool that many presidents have used and that the Supreme Court repeatedly has affirmed. Impeaching a president for invoking executive privilege essentially guts this important tool.
The Constitution’s Framers were very concerned that impeachment would be used as a political weapon, as is happening today. They never meant it to be the “no-confidence vote” of parliamentary systems that create turmoil by changing leadership anytime such a vote is called. Impeachment was meant for presidents who engaged in crimes so grievous that removing them from office couldn’t wait until the next election.
With this impeachment, the House has threatened our very constitutional system, effectively turning presidents into mere puppets of Congress, rejecting the idea of a separate and co-equal branch of government. In doing so, the House has damaged the unique system of checks and balances the Framers crafted to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.
The House also has made the American people the casualties in the process. The mere threat of impeachment may be all that is needed to stop future presidents from implementing policies that they know are popular with the people but unpopular with the opposition party in the House.
In the worst-case scenarios, presidents who become paralyzed in their decision-making about national security and natural disasters could end up putting Americans in harm’s way.
Only time will tell the extent of the damage that has been done.


dailysignal--2020-01-29--Presidents Have the Authority—and Every Right—to Remove Ambassadors

Multiple news outlets last week reported on a 2018 video recording in which two men with Ukrainian connections , Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , apparently inform President Donald Trump that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch , was undermining his policy and asserting that he soon would be impeached .
Unsurprisingly , this recording became part of the broader impeachment debate , which accuses Trump of abuse of power , even though Yovanovitch herself acknowledges that she “ served at the pleasure of the president.
” The Constitution vests the president with the authority to appoint ambassadors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consent .
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution , the authority to remove officials is consistent with that authority , along with the president ’ s position as the head of the executive branch .
Indeed , although the removal power has a convoluted and complex history , it is strongest where the president ’ s constitutional authority—such as in the conduct of foreign affairs—is explicit and broad .
Moreover , Congress has explicitly endorsed the president ’ s authority to remove and reassign ambassadors though the Rogers Act of 1924 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which established the rules , mission , and parameters of the U.S. Foreign Service .
Indeed , the U.S. Code ( Title 22 , Chapter 52 , §3941 ( d ) ( 2 ) ) makes explicit that “ Chiefs of mission , ambassadors at large , and ministers serve at the pleasure of the President.
” Congress was correct to support this authority .
In addition to their diplomatic and bureaucratic duties as head of a U.S. Embassy under the State Department , U.S. ambassadors serve as the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and government .
Ambassadors are understood to speak for the president , and for this reason , serve at the president ’ s discretion .
A relationship of less than full confidence is incompatible with the role .
In practical terms , if a president lacks faith in an ambassador , there will be a strong incentive to circumvent him or her , possibly sowing discord and confusion .
The proper remedy , instead , is removal .
Ideally , the president ’ s authority to remove ambassadors should empower the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence that its officials will faithfully execute his policies .
People can disagree with the president ’ s tone or comportment , but it ’ s clear that Yovanovitch had lost the president ’ s confidence .
As such , he was perfectly within his authority to call for her removal .

Multiple news outlets last week reported on a 2018 video recording in which two men with Ukrainian connections, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, apparently inform President Donald Trump that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was undermining his policy and asserting that he soon would be impeached.
In response, Trump reportedly ordered: “Get rid of her.”
Unsurprisingly, this recording became part of the broader impeachment debate, which accuses Trump of abuse of power, even though Yovanovitch herself acknowledges that she “served at the pleasure of the president.”
The Constitution vests the president with the authority to appoint ambassadors, with the Senate’s advice and consent. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the authority to remove officials is consistent with that authority, along with the president’s position as the head of the executive branch.
Indeed, although the removal power has a convoluted and complex history, it is strongest where the president’s constitutional authority—such as in the conduct of foreign affairs—is explicit and broad.
Moreover, Congress has explicitly endorsed the president’s authority to remove and reassign ambassadors though the Rogers Act of 1924 and the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which established the rules, mission, and parameters of the U.S. Foreign Service.
Indeed, the U.S. Code (Title 22, Chapter 52, §3941(d)(2)) makes explicit that “Chiefs of mission, ambassadors at large, and ministers serve at the pleasure of the President.”
Congress was correct to support this authority. In addition to their diplomatic and bureaucratic duties as head of a U.S. Embassy under the State Department, U.S. ambassadors serve as the president’s personal representative to a foreign head of state and government.
Ambassadors are understood to speak for the president, and for this reason, serve at the president’s discretion. A relationship of less than full confidence is incompatible with the role.
In practical terms, if a president lacks faith in an ambassador, there will be a strong incentive to circumvent him or her, possibly sowing discord and confusion.
The proper remedy, instead, is removal. Ideally, the president’s authority to remove ambassadors should empower the State Department by bolstering the president’s confidence that its officials will faithfully execute his policies.
People can disagree with the president’s tone or comportment, but it’s clear that Yovanovitch had lost the president’s confidence. As such, he was perfectly within his authority to call for her removal.


dailysignal--2020-01-30--6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial

Wednesday was question-and-answer day in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , and it included a thought exercise in which Barack Obama asks Russia to investigate election rival Mitt Romney .
Senators acting as jurors , and in some way judges , submitted questions in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts .
He then read them out loud for answers from the president ’ s lawyers or from House Democrats ’ impeachment managers led by Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif .
Here are highlights from the eighth day of the impeachment trial , which is to be followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In previous days , the president ’ s lawyers contrasted the charges against Trump with what they say was a much more questionable open-microphone incident in 2012 , when President Barack Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “ more flexibility ” on Eastern Europe missile defense after the upcoming U.S. election .
Schiff picked up on the point , offering an imaginary scenario in which Obama asks for a Russian investigation of his 2012 election opponent , former Massachusetts Gov .
Mitt Romney , who now is a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s use that analogy and make it more comparable to today and see how you feel about this scenario , ” Schiff said , adding : President Obama , on an open mic , says to Medvedev , ‘ Hey , Medvedev , I know you don ’ t want me to send this military money to Ukraine because they are fighting and killing your people.
’ ‘ I want you to do me a favor , though .
I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Mitt Romney .
If you ’ re willing to do that , quid pro quo , I won ’ t give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line.
’ Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct ?
Are we really ready to say that that would be OK if Barack Obama asked Medvedev to investigate his opponent and withhold money from an ally that needed to defend itself to get an investigation of Mitt Romney ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats voted Dec. 18 to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The two articles were based on Trump ’ s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy , in which the two leaders briefly talked about Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine ’ s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and the role of his son , Hunter Biden , on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma .
Unknown to Zelenskyy at the time , Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which he would lift in September .
Joe Biden has boasted that in 2016 , while serving as vice president overseeing the Obama administration ’ s Ukraine policy , he threatened to withhold $ 1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine unless the government fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin .
At the time , Shokin was investigating Burisma , which reportedly paid Hunter Biden $ 83,000 per month .
Later in the hearing , Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , submitted a related question to the chief justice .
“ In Mr. Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had evidence that Mitt Romney ’ s son was being paid $ 1 million per year by a corrupt Russian company and Mitt Romney had acted to benefit that company , would Obama have authority to ask that that potential corruption be investigated ?
” Roberts read .
Schiff , responding to Cruz ’ s question , asserted that whether an investigation of Romney were justified or unjustified , it would still be impeachable for Obama to ask for it .
“ The reality is [ that ] for a president to withhold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hypothetical to withhold it to benefit an adversary to target their political opponent , is wrong and corrupt , ” Schiff said .
“ End of story .
If you allow a president to rationalize that conduct , rationalize jeopardizing the nation ’ s security to benefit himself because he believes his opponent should be investigated by a foreign power , that is impeachable.
” Schiff asserted that Trump wasn ’ t concerned with burden sharing by other nations to help Ukraine , but only with benefiting his own reelection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call between Trump and Zelenskyy , Schiff read Trump ’ s words : “ I need you to do us a favor , though.
” “ Does that sound like burden sharing ?
Of course not , ” Schiff said on the Senate floor .
However , deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin pointed to a June 24 email with the subject line “ POTUS follow-up ” and its contents on the Trump administration ’ s concerns that the United States provides Ukraine with 10 % of its military budget and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Philbin also read from the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelenskyy .
Quoting Trump ’ s words in the transcript , he read : Another Trump lawyer , Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz , asserted that a quid pro quo in foriegn policy is not unusual .
“ Yesterday , I had the privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the president of the United States regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict , ” Dershowitz said .
“ And I offered you a hypothetical the other day : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be elected and Congress were to authorize much money to either Israel or the Palestinians , and the Democratic president were to say to Israel , ‘ No , I ’ m going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth.
’ Or , to the Palestinians , ‘ I will withhold the money Congress authorized to you unless you stop paying terrorists.
’ ” “ And [ what if ] the president said quid pro quo .
‘ If you don ’ t do it , you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , you get the money.
’ There is no one who would regard that as unlawful.
” However , in talking about a hypothetical Romney investigation sought by Obama , Schiff argued that not all quid pro quos are the same : We condition aid all the time for legitimate reasons , yes .
For legitimate reasons , you might say to a governor of a state , ‘ You should chip in more for your own disaster relief.
’ But if the president ’ s real motive in depriving a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t get his attorney general to investigate the president ’ s political rival , are we ready to say the president can sacrifice the interest of the people of that state—or in the case of Medvedev , the people of our country—because all quid pro quos are fine , it ’ s carte blanche ?
Is that really what we are prepared to say , with respect to this president ’ s misconduct or the next ?
Because , if we are , then the next president of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Philbin , one of Trump ’ s lawyers , pointed to criticism from Schiff and the House ’ s other six impeachment managers , or prosecutors , that Trump did not follow the suggestions of his advisers in his phone conversation with Zelenskyy .
“ They say that the president defied and confounded every agency in the executive branch .
That is a constitutionally incoherent statement , ” Philbin said , adding : Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. , one of the House impeachment managers , argued that it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not need the permission of his staff about foreign policy .
That information is offered to you as evidence of what he thought he was doing , ” Lofgren said .
“ He did not appear to be pursuing a policy agenda .
He appeared , with all of the evidence , to be pursuing a corruption , a corruption of our elections that ’ s upcoming , a high crime and misdemeanor that requires conviction and removal.
” Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow suggested that Schiff could be called as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ken Starr was a House witness in 1998 to explain his investigation of President Bill Clinton .
Starr is now one of Trump ’ s lawyers .
Sekulow was responding to Schiff ’ s suggestion that Roberts , presiding over the trial , should decide whether Trump may cite executive privilege to prevent witness testimony .
“ In the Clinton [ impeachment ] proceeding , the witnesses that actually gave deposition testimony were witnesses that had either been interviewed by deposition in the House proceeding or grand jury proceedings , ” Sekulow said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairman Schiff , Manager Schiff , that the chief justice make a determination on executive privilege , ” he said , adding : Schiff said that Trump , by not providing documents to House investigators , is behaving as if he is the state : Philbin responded that Schiff and the other House managers were having it both ways .
“ If they think they can sue [ to secure documents and testimony ] , they have to take that step .
Because the Constitution , the courts have made clear , requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative branch , ” Philbin said .
“ So , if they think the courts can resolve that dispute , that ’ s the next step , they should do that and have that litigated .
Then things can proceed on to a higher level of confrontation .
But , to jump straight to impeachment , to the ultimate constitutional confrontation , doesn ’ t make sense.
” They ’ ve decided [ that ] in this impeachment , they don ’ t want to do litigation .
It ’ s because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House managers admitted on the floor they had to get the president impeached before the election , they had no time for the courts , for anyone telling them what the rules were , and they had to get it done by Christmas .
And that ’ s what they did .
Then they waited around for a month before bringing it here .
That shows you what ’ s really behind the claims of , ‘ Oh , it ’ s urgent , but then it ’ s not urgent.
’ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our timetable to get it done by Christmas , but then it ’ s not when we can wait for a month because we want to tell the Senate how to run things .
It ’ s all a political charade .
That ’ s part of the reason , a major reason , the Senate should reject these articles of impeachment .
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes : 5 Big Points by Trump ’ s Lawyers as Defense Opens in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment Managers

Wednesday was question-and-answer day in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and it included a thought exercise in which Barack Obama asks Russia to investigate election rival Mitt Romney.
Senators acting as jurors, and in some way judges, submitted questions in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts. He then read them out loud for answers from the president’s lawyers or from House Democrats’ impeachment managers led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Here are highlights from the eighth day of the impeachment trial, which is to be followed by another day of questioning Thursday.
1. Schiff’s Parody of a Romney Probe
In previous days, the president’s lawyers contrasted the charges against Trump with what they say was a much more questionable open-microphone incident in 2012, when President Barack Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” on Eastern Europe missile defense after the upcoming U.S. election.
Schiff picked up on the point, offering an imaginary scenario in which Obama asks for a Russian investigation of his 2012 election opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who now is a Republican member of the Senate.
“Let’s use that analogy and make it more comparable to today and see how you feel about this scenario,” Schiff said, adding:
President Obama, on an open mic, says to Medvedev, ‘Hey, Medvedev, I know you don’t want me to send this military money to Ukraine because they are fighting and killing your people.’ ‘I want you to do me a favor, though. I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney. And I want you to announce you found dirt on Mitt Romney. If you’re willing to do that, quid pro quo, I won’t give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front line.’ Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct? Are we really ready to say that that would be OK if Barack Obama asked Medvedev to investigate his opponent and withhold money from an ally that needed to defend itself to get an investigation of Mitt Romney? That’s the parallel here.
House Democrats voted Dec. 18 to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The two articles were based on Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which the two leaders briefly talked about Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and the role of his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
Unknown to Zelenskyy at the time, Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, which he would lift in September.
Joe Biden has boasted that in 2016, while serving as vice president overseeing the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine unless the government fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma, which reportedly paid Hunter Biden $83,000 per month.
Later in the hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, submitted a related question to the chief justice.
“In Mr. Schiff’s hypothetical, if President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney’s son was being paid $1 million per year by a corrupt Russian company and Mitt Romney had acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority to ask that that potential corruption be investigated?” Roberts read.
Schiff, responding to Cruz’s question, asserted that whether an investigation of Romney were justified or unjustified, it would still be impeachable for Obama to ask for it.
“The reality is [that] for a president to withhold aid from a military ally, or in the hypothetical to withhold it to benefit an adversary to target their political opponent, is wrong and corrupt,” Schiff said. “End of story. If you allow a president to rationalize that conduct, rationalize jeopardizing the nation’s security to benefit himself because he believes his opponent should be investigated by a foreign power, that is impeachable.”
The California Democrat added:
Now, if you have a legitimate reason to think any U.S. person has committed an offense, there are legitimate ways to have an investigation conducted. There are legitimate ways to have the Justice Department conduct an investigation. … But under no circumstances do you go outside of your own legitimate law enforcement process to ask a foreign power to investigate your rival.
2. A Question of Burden Sharing
Schiff asserted that Trump wasn’t concerned with burden sharing by other nations to help Ukraine, but only with benefiting his own reelection.
Consulting the official White House transcript of the call between Trump and Zelenskyy, Schiff read Trump’s words: “I need you to do us a favor, though.”
“Does that sound like burden sharing? Of course not,” Schiff said on the Senate floor.
However, deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin pointed to a June 24 email with the subject line “POTUS follow-up” and its contents on the Trump administration’s concerns that the United States provides Ukraine with 10% of its military budget and that other European countries are not doing enough.
Philbin also read from the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelenskyy.
Quoting Trump’s words in the transcript, he read:
We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time, much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than we are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about.
Philbin added: “He’s raising burden sharing, and President Zelenskyy agreed with him.”
3. Are All Quid Pro Quos Equal?
Another Trump lawyer, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserted that a quid pro quo in foriegn policy is not unusual.
“Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the president of the United States regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict,” Dershowitz said. “And I offered you a hypothetical the other day: What if a Democratic president were to be elected and Congress were to authorize much money to either Israel or the Palestinians, and the Democratic president were to say to Israel, ‘No, I’m going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth.’ Or, to the Palestinians, ‘I will withhold the money Congress authorized to you unless you stop paying terrorists.’”
“And [what if] the president said quid pro quo. ‘If you don’t do it, you don’t get the money. If you do it, you get the money.’ There is no one who would regard that as unlawful.”
However, in talking about a hypothetical Romney investigation sought by Obama, Schiff argued that not all quid pro quos are the same:
We condition aid all the time for legitimate reasons, yes. For legitimate reasons, you might say to a governor of a state, ‘You should chip in more for your own disaster relief.’ But if the president’s real motive in depriving a state of disaster relief is because that governor won’t get his attorney general to investigate the president’s political rival, are we ready to say the president can sacrifice the interest of the people of that state—or in the case of Medvedev, the people of our country—because all quid pro quos are fine, it’s carte blanche? Is that really what we are prepared to say, with respect to this president’s misconduct or the next? Because, if we are, then the next president of the United States can ask for an investigation of you.
4. Elected President, Unelected Bureaucrats
Philbin, one of Trump’s lawyers, pointed to criticism from Schiff and the House’s other six impeachment managers, or prosecutors, that Trump did not follow the suggestions of his advisers in his phone conversation with Zelenskyy.
“They say that the president defied and confounded every agency in the executive branch. That is a constitutionally incoherent statement,” Philbin said, adding:
The president cannot defy the agencies within the executive branch that are subordinate to him. It is only they who can defy the president’s determination of policy. What this all boils down to is that it shows this case is built on a policy difference, and a policy difference where the president is the one who gets to determine the policy, because he’s been elected by the people to do that.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., one of the House impeachment managers, argued that it wasn’t the point.
“The president surely does not need the permission of his staff about foreign policy. That information is offered to you as evidence of what he thought he was doing,” Lofgren said. “He did not appear to be pursuing a policy agenda. He appeared, with all of the evidence, to be pursuing a corruption, a corruption of our elections that’s upcoming, a high crime and misdemeanor that requires conviction and removal.”
5. Schiff as a Witness
Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow suggested that Schiff could be called as a witness, similar to how then-independent counsel Ken Starr was a House witness in 1998 to explain his investigation of President Bill Clinton. Starr is now one of Trump’s lawyers.
Sekulow was responding to Schiff’s suggestion that Roberts, presiding over the trial, should decide whether Trump may cite executive privilege to prevent witness testimony.
“In the Clinton [impeachment] proceeding, the witnesses that actually gave deposition testimony were witnesses that had either been interviewed by deposition in the House proceeding or grand jury proceedings,” Sekulow said.
“There was another statement from Chairman Schiff, Manager Schiff, that the chief justice make a determination on executive privilege,” he said, adding:
If we get to the point of witnesses, for instance, if one of the witnesses to be called by the president was Adam Schiff, in the role basically of Ken Starr. Ken Starr … made the presentation before the House of Representatives, had about 12 hours of questioning. If Rep. Schiff is called as a witness, would in fact issues of [constitutional] Speech and Debate Clause privilege be decided by the presiding officer? Would it go to court? Maybe they would waive it? Those would be the kind of issues that would be very, very significant.
6. ‘You’re Not a King’
Schiff said that Trump, by not providing documents to House investigators, is behaving as if he is the state:
I think if you look at the pattern of this president’s conduct and his words, what you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself. When the president talks about people that report his wrongdoing, for example, when he describes a whistleblower as a traitor or a spy, the only way you can conceive of someone who reports wrongdoing as committing a crime against the country is if you believe you are synonymous with the country, that any report of wrongdoing against the president, the person of the president is a treasonous act. You have the argument that subpoenas aren’t valid before the resolution. Then, with respect to subpoenas issued after the House resolution, like to [acting White House chief of staff Mick] Mulvaney, well, those are no good either. You’ve heard the argument ‘We have absolute immunity.’ And the court that addresses this says, ‘No, you don’t. You’re not a king.’
Philbin responded that Schiff and the other House managers were having it both ways.
“If they think they can sue [to secure documents and testimony], they have to take that step. Because the Constitution, the courts have made clear, requires incrementalism in disputes between the executive and legislative branch,” Philbin said. “So, if they think the courts can resolve that dispute, that’s the next step, they should do that and have that litigated. Then things can proceed on to a higher level of confrontation. But, to jump straight to impeachment, to the ultimate constitutional confrontation, doesn’t make sense.”
Philbin added:
They’ve decided [that] in this impeachment, they don’t want to do litigation. It’s because they had a timetable. One of the House managers admitted on the floor they had to get the president impeached before the election, they had no time for the courts, for anyone telling them what the rules were, and they had to get it done by Christmas. And that’s what they did. Then they waited around for a month before bringing it here. That shows you what’s really behind the claims of, ‘Oh, it’s urgent, but then it’s not urgent.’ It’s urgent when it’s our timetable to get it done by Christmas, but then it’s not when we can wait for a month because we want to tell the Senate how to run things. It’s all a political charade. That’s part of the reason, a major reason, the Senate should reject these articles of impeachment.
***
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-02-05--Pelosi Rips Trump’s State of the Union Address

Immediately after President Donald Trump finished his State of the Union address , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , standing behind him , tore his speech in half while the eyes of the nation watched .
In four separate motions Tuesday night as lawmakers applauded the president , Pelosi tore the pages of her copy of the speech in two .
“ Speaker Pelosi just ripped up : One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen .
The survival of a child born at 21 weeks .
The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller .
A service member ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s her legacy , ” the White House tweeted .
Pelosi ’ s demonstration followed Trump ’ s ignoring her outstretched hand after giving her a copy of his speech as he arrived at the podium in the House chamber about an hour and a half earlier .
The speaker , who led House Democrats in impeaching the president , grimaced at this .
Just minutes after the president concluded his speech , # Pelosi , # NancyPelosi , # SpeakerPelosi , # Nancy , and # Classless became top trending hashtags along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans across the country took to Twitter to express their opinions .
“ How petty of Pelosi , ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , tweeted .
“ Ripping up a piece of paper doesn ’ t change the facts that were written on it—Americans are winning , in spite of the do-nothing Democrats.
” “ Tonight President Trump highlighted his record of # Results for our country in his # SOTU .
He invited amazing guests with extraordinary personal stories that capture the American Dream , ” Rep. Elise Stefanik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petty Pelosi tears up the speech .
How classless.
” In a statement , Pelosi said : “ The manifesto of mistruths presented in page after page of the address tonight should be a call to action for everyone who expects truth from the president and policies worthy of his office and the American people .
“ The American people expect and deserve a president to have integrity and respect for the aspirations for their children , ” the California Democrat added .
Fox News Channel reported that Pelosi said she ripped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it was the courteous thing to do , considering the alternatives .
”

Immediately after President Donald Trump finished his State of the Union address, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing behind him, tore his speech in half while the eyes of the nation watched.
In four separate motions Tuesday night as lawmakers applauded the president, Pelosi tore the pages of her copy of the speech in two.
“Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member’s reunion with his family. That’s her legacy,” the White House tweeted.
Speaker Pelosi just ripped up:
One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen.
The survival of a child born at 21 weeks.
The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller.
A service member's reunion with his family.
That's her legacy. — The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 5, 2020
Pelosi’s demonstration followed Trump’s ignoring her outstretched hand after giving her a copy of his speech as he arrived at the podium in the House chamber about an hour and a half earlier. The speaker, who led House Democrats in impeaching the president, grimaced at this.
Just minutes after the president concluded his speech, #Pelosi, #NancyPelosi, #SpeakerPelosi, #Nancy, and #Classless became top trending hashtags along with #SOTU and #SOTU2020.
Americans across the country took to Twitter to express their opinions.
“How petty of Pelosi,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tweeted. “Ripping up a piece of paper doesn’t change the facts that were written on it—Americans are winning, in spite of the do-nothing Democrats.”
How petty of Pelosi. Ripping up a piece of paper doesn't change the facts that were written on it—Americans are winning, in spite of the do-nothing Democrats. — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) February 5, 2020
“Tonight President Trump highlighted his record of #Results for our country in his #SOTU. He invited amazing guests with extraordinary personal stories that capture the American Dream,” Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., tweeted. “Meanwhile Petty Pelosi tears up the speech. How classless.”
Tonight President Trump highlighted his record of #Results for our country in his #SOTU.
He invited amazing guests with extraordinary personal stories that capture the American Dream.
Meanwhile Petty Pelosi tears up the speech. How classless. — Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) February 5, 2020
Others celebrated Pelosi’s action:
Did Nancy Pelosi rip up Trump's speech? If so, good for her. #SOTU — Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) February 5, 2020
Nancy Pelosi is the Queen ? https://t.co/vvZp9CWcWf — Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) February 5, 2020
The media would have spent all day tomorrow repeating Donald Trump's lies.
But now with one tear, Nancy Pelosi has destroyed Trump's SOTU coverage.
Well done, my queen. — Zac Petkanas (@Zac_Petkanas) February 5, 2020
In a statement, Pelosi said: “The manifesto of mistruths presented in page after page of the address tonight should be a call to action for everyone who expects truth from the president and policies worthy of his office and the American people.
“The American people expect and deserve a president to have integrity and respect for the aspirations for their children,” the California Democrat added.
Fox News Channel reported that Pelosi said she ripped the pages of the speech in two “because it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternatives.”


dailysignal--2020-02-05--Fact-Checking 11 of Trump’s Claims in State of the Union

In a night of high emotion , President Donald Trump used his third State of the Union address to tout the “ great American comeback ” during his first three years in office .
Before the night was over , Trump had staged the surprise reunion of a soldier deployed to Afghanistan with his family and announced a scholarship for the daughter of a single mother ; first lady Melania Trump had presented legendary talk radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom ; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had ripped up a copy of the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday night before a joint session of Congress on the eve of his likely acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial .
He is only the second president in history , after Bill Clinton in 1999 , to make the annual speech during an impeachment trial .
Amid all the emotion , here are some fact checks of key parts of the president ’ s speech , which lasted about an hour and 18 minutes .
1 .
“ We are restoring our nation ’ s manufacturing might , even though predictions were that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations , America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.
” According to Poynter Institute ’ s PolitiFact in 2017 , “ the United States has lost more than 60,000 factories since 2001.
” Trump made a similar claim in 2017 , mentioned by PolitiFact , laying the blame on China ’ s joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 for the decline in factories .
The president said at a rally in Kentucky : “ Since China joined—that ’ s another beauty—the WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many more than 60,000 factories.
” In 2001 , there were 397,552 factories in the U.S. , according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
In 2016 , there were 343,687 .
That ’ s a difference of roughly 54,000 .
The first quarter of 2013 saw the lowest number of factories during the George W. Bush-Barack Obama years : 333,565 .
However , the number of factories began to increase during the final years of the Obama administration .
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , 356,046 manufacturing establishments existed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent quarter available .
In the first quarter of 2017 , when Trump took office , there were 343,972 .
That means there ’ s now an additional 12,074 new factories .
2 .
“ … the United States has become the No .
1 producer of oil and natural gas in the world , by far.
” The Trump administration has taken steps to deregulate the oil industry , and the industry has been booming because of technological innovation .
Oil production in particular has exploded in the past decade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fracking technology that has allowed oil drillers to tap into massive shale oil reserves .
According to The Wall Street Journal , in late 2018 the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in nearly 75 years : More than that , the U.S. also became the world ’ s largest producer of oil in 2018 , according to the Energy Information Administration , as a result of a rapid increase in production that began in 2011 .
“ U.S .
crude oil production , particularly from light sweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2011 , ” according to EIA .
“ Much of the recent growth has occurred in areas such as the Permian region in western Texas and eastern New Mexico , the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico , and the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana.
” The U.S. briefly surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world ’ s largest oil exporter in June .
In August , the EIA reported , “ The United States surpassed Russia in 2011 to become the world ’ s largest producer of natural gas and surpassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s largest producer of petroleum.
” 3 .
“ The unemployment rates for African Americans , Asian Americans , and Hispanic Americans have reached the lowest levels in history .
African American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low .
The African American poverty rate has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded.
” The Hispanic unemployment rate fell to 3.9 % at the end of the the third quarter of 2019 , a record low , according to CNBC , which also reported a record low for unemployment for African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , African American youth unemployment reportedly dropped to the lowest rate since it was first tracked in the early 1970s .
In July , the unemployment rate for blacks between ages 16 and 19 dropped to 17.7 % .
A total of 762,000 young African Americans had jobs in July 2019 .
The labor force participation rate fell from 36.3 % in July 2018 to 38.8 % in July 2019 .
The unemployment rate for Asian Americans hit a record low in July 2019 , according to the Associated Press , falling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times before about the decline in the poverty rate for African Americans .
PolitiFact , in 2018 , said this is accurate .
4 .
“ Under the last administration , more than 10 million people were added to the food stamp rolls .
Under my administration , 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps.
” According to numbers from the Department of Agriculture , 10.7 million more Americans were on food stamps when President Barack Obama left office in January 2017 after eight years .
( The official name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program , or SNAP . )
“ In 2009 , when Obama entered office , 33,490,000 Americans were on food stamps .
Eight years later that number had increased to 44,219,000 , an increase of nearly 11 million , ” reported The Washington Free Beacon .
“ Recipients of the program received a monthly benefit of about $ 125 .
The Department of Agriculture has noted that changes to food stamp policies made it easier to receive benefits.
” The Agriculture Department recently released numbers showing that 7.7 million fewer Americans receive SNAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trump administration restored stricter work requirements for welfare recipients that had been curtailed during Obama ’ s presidency .
5 .
“ After decades of flat and falling incomes , wages are rising fast , and , wonderfully , they are rising fastest for low-income workers , who have seen a 16 % pay increase since my election .
This is a blue-collar boom.
” Incomes for low-wage workers have been rising faster than incomes for low-wage workers , a reversal of a long-term trend , according to data from the Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of 2019 , the Atlanta Federal Reserve ’ s wage-growth tracker showed that “ the lowest-paid workers have been experiencing higher median wage growth.
” “ [ F ] or workers in lower-wage jobs , their relative median wage over the 2000s has deteriorated , and that erosion has reversed course only in the last few years , ” the Atlanta Federal Reserve said .
“ This reverses the pattern seen in the wake of the Great Recession , when median wage growth for lower-paid workers slowed by more than for workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took office , health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just five years .
I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives .
Our new plans are up to 60 % less expensive.
” Trump was citing numbers from a Department of Health and Human Services study from May 2017 that found average health insurance premiums had doubled since 2013 .
The analysis , under the Trump administration , was based on data compiled during the Obama administration and produced by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums in the individual market on HealthCare.gov went from an annual $ 2,784 in 2013 to $ 5,712 in 2017—an increase of 105 % .
In addition , all 39 states using the Obamacare exchanges on HealthCare.gov saw an increase in individual market premiums from 2013 to 2017 .
Three states—Alaska , Alabama , and Oklahoma—saw premiums triple , the HHS analysis found .
With regard to plans costing 60 % less under the Trump administration , the president was referring to a new rule in 2018 that allowed Americans to buy short-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , and renewable for up to three years .
7 .
“ One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system , wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.
” In April , Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , introduced a “ Medicare for All ” bill alongside 13 other senators .
Unlike Obamacare , which was sold as a program that would not cause Americans to lose their private insurance , the Medicare for All proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation health care expert Robert Moffit wrote : “ Under Section 107 , the bill would outlaw private health coverage , including employer-sponsored coverage , that ‘ duplicates ’ the coverage provided under the government health plan .
Approximately 181 million Americans would lose their existing private coverage.
” 8 .
“ Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded health care to millions of illegal aliens , forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2019 , every Democratic presidential candidate raised their hands when asked whether they supported taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants .
California became the first state to pass taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants .
The New York Times reported that in six states and the District of Columbia , Medicaid covers children regardless of immigration status .
So of more than 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States , about 6 million would need health care .
A study by the Center for Immigration Studies determined that government-provided health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion per year .
9 .
“ This will be a tremendous boon to our already very strongly guarded southern border where , as we speak , a long , tall , and very powerful wall is being built .
We have now completed over 100 miles and will have over 500 miles fully completed by early next year.
” On Jan. 10 , Trump ’ s administration announced a completed 100 miles of wall along the nation ’ s southern border with Mexico .
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed the first 100 miles of new border wall system on the southwest border .
New wall has been constructed in every border state from California to Texas.
” 10 .
“ Last year , our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries , 5,000 sexual assaults , 45,000 violent assaults , and 2,000 murders.
” In January , Matthew Albence , acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , said : According to an ICE report last year , among the 123,000 arrests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robbery .
11 .
“ Three years ago , the barbarians of ISIS [ also known as the Islamic State ] held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria .
Today , the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100 % destroyed , and the founder and leader of ISIS—the bloodthirsty killer [ Abu Bakr ] al-Baghdadi—is dead.
” The Defense Department reported in December 2018 that the U.S. military , with its partners in the region , “ has liberated more than 20,000 square miles of previously held ISIS territory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , the Army ’ s Delta Force killed al-Baghdadi in Syria .

In a night of high emotion, President Donald Trump used his third State of the Union address to tout the “great American comeback” during his first three years in office.
Before the night was over, Trump had staged the surprise reunion of a soldier deployed to Afghanistan with his family and announced a scholarship for the daughter of a single mother; first lady Melania Trump had presented legendary talk radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had ripped up a copy of the president’s remarks.
Trump delivered the address Tuesday night before a joint session of Congress on the eve of his likely acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial. He is only the second president in history, after Bill Clinton in 1999, to make the annual speech during an impeachment trial.
Amid all the emotion, here are some fact checks of key parts of the president’s speech, which lasted about an hour and 18 minutes.
1. “We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”
According to Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact in 2017, “the United States has lost more than 60,000 factories since 2001.”
Trump made a similar claim in 2017, mentioned by PolitiFact, laying the blame on China’s joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 for the decline in factories. The president said at a rally in Kentucky: “Since China joined—that’s another beauty—the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories.”
In 2001, there were 397,552 factories in the U.S., according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2016, there were 343,687. That’s a difference of roughly 54,000.
The first quarter of 2013 saw the lowest number of factories during the George W. Bush-Barack Obama years: 333,565. However, the number of factories began to increase during the final years of the Obama administration.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 356,046 manufacturing establishments existed in the second quarter of 2019, the most recent quarter available.
In the first quarter of 2017, when Trump took office, there were 343,972. That means there’s now an additional 12,074 new factories.
2. “ … the United States has become the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas in the world, by far.”
The Trump administration has taken steps to deregulate the oil industry, and the industry has been booming because of technological innovation.
Oil production in particular has exploded in the past decade, thanks largely to the revolution in hydraulic fracking technology that has allowed oil drillers to tap into massive shale oil reserves.
According to The Wall Street Journal, in late 2018 the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in nearly 75 years:
The U.S. exported 3.2 million barrels of oil a day during the week that ended on Nov. 30, along with about 5.8 million barrels a day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products. Those exports exceeded combined imports of 8.8 million barrels a day in the week, making the country a net exporter, according to the EIA. This is the first time the U.S. has been a net exporter since at least 1973, federal data show.
More than that, the U.S. also became the world’s largest producer of oil in 2018, according to the Energy Information Administration, as a result of a rapid increase in production that began in 2011.
“U.S. crude oil production, particularly from light sweet crude oil grades, has rapidly increased since 2011,” according to EIA. “Much of the recent growth has occurred in areas such as the Permian region in western Texas and eastern New Mexico, the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico, and the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana.”
The U.S. briefly surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil exporter in June.
In August, the EIA reported, “The United States surpassed Russia in 2011 to become the world’s largest producer of natural gas and surpassed Saudi Arabia in 2018 to become the world’s largest producer of petroleum.”
3. “The unemployment rates for African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans have reached the lowest levels in history. African American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low. The African American poverty rate has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded.”
The Hispanic unemployment rate fell to 3.9% at the end of the the third quarter of 2019, a record low, according to CNBC, which also reported a record low for unemployment for African Americans at 5.5%.
Last year, African American youth unemployment reportedly dropped to the lowest rate since it was first tracked in the early 1970s. In July, the unemployment rate for blacks between ages 16 and 19 dropped to 17.7%.
A total of 762,000 young African Americans had jobs in July 2019. The labor force participation rate fell from 36.3% in July 2018 to 38.8% in July 2019.
The unemployment rate for Asian Americans hit a record low in July 2019, according to the Associated Press, falling to 2.1%.
Trump has talked many times before about the decline in the poverty rate for African Americans. PolitiFact, in 2018, said this is accurate.
4. “Under the last administration, more than 10 million people were added to the food stamp rolls. Under my administration, 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps.”
According to numbers from the Department of Agriculture, 10.7 million more Americans were on food stamps when President Barack Obama left office in January 2017 after eight years. (The official name of the program is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.)
“In 2009, when Obama entered office, 33,490,000 Americans were on food stamps. Eight years later that number had increased to 44,219,000, an increase of nearly 11 million,” reported The Washington Free Beacon. “Recipients of the program received a monthly benefit of about $125. The Department of Agriculture has noted that changes to food stamp policies made it easier to receive benefits.”
The Agriculture Department recently released numbers showing that 7.7 million fewer Americans receive SNAP benefits than when Trump took office.
The Trump administration restored stricter work requirements for welfare recipients that had been curtailed during Obama’s presidency.
5. “After decades of flat and falling incomes, wages are rising fast, and, wonderfully, they are rising fastest for low-income workers, who have seen a 16% pay increase since my election. This is a blue-collar boom.”
Incomes for low-wage workers have been rising faster than incomes for low-wage workers, a reversal of a long-term trend, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
At the end of 2019, the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s wage-growth tracker showed that “the lowest-paid workers have been experiencing higher median wage growth.”
“[F]or workers in lower-wage jobs, their relative median wage over the 2000s has deteriorated, and that erosion has reversed course only in the last few years,” the Atlanta Federal Reserve said.
“This reverses the pattern seen in the wake of the Great Recession, when median wage growth for lower-paid workers slowed by more than for workers overall.”
The Wall Street Journal reported in December:
Pay for the bottom 25% of wage earners rose 4.5% in November from a year earlier, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Wages for the top 25% of earners rose 2.9%. Similarly, the Atlanta Fed found wages for low-skilled workers have accelerated since early 2018, and last month matched the pace of high-skill workers for the first time since 2010.
6. “Before I took office, health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just five years. I moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives. Our new plans are up to 60% less expensive.”
Trump was citing numbers from a Department of Health and Human Services study from May 2017 that found average health insurance premiums had doubled since 2013.
The analysis, under the Trump administration, was based on data compiled during the Obama administration and produced by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Specifically, the analysis found that average premiums in the individual market on HealthCare.gov went from an annual $2,784 in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017—an increase of 105%.
In addition, all 39 states using the Obamacare exchanges on HealthCare.gov saw an increase in individual market premiums from 2013 to 2017. Three states—Alaska, Alabama, and Oklahoma—saw premiums triple, the HHS analysis found.
With regard to plans costing 60% less under the Trump administration, the president was referring to a new rule in 2018 that allowed Americans to buy short-term health insurance plans to last for 364 days, and renewable for up to three years.
7. “One hundred thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”
In April, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a “Medicare for All” bill alongside 13 other senators.
Unlike Obamacare, which was sold as a program that would not cause Americans to lose their private insurance, the Medicare for All proposal specifically would eliminate private insurance.
Heritage Foundation health care expert Robert Moffit wrote: “Under Section 107, the bill would outlaw private health coverage, including employer-sponsored coverage, that ‘duplicates’ the coverage provided under the government health plan. Approximately 181 million Americans would lose their existing private coverage.”
8. “Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded health care to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders. “
During a debate in June 2019, every Democratic presidential candidate raised their hands when asked whether they supported taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants.
California became the first state to pass taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants. The New York Times reported that in six states and the District of Columbia, Medicaid covers children regardless of immigration status. So of more than 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States, about 6 million would need health care.
A study by the Center for Immigration Studies determined that government-provided health insurance for illegal immigrants would cost $23 billion per year.
9. “This will be a tremendous boon to our already very strongly guarded southern border where, as we speak, a long, tall, and very powerful wall is being built. We have now completed over 100 miles and will have over 500 miles fully completed by early next year.”
On Jan. 10, Trump’s administration announced a completed 100 miles of wall along the nation’s southern border with Mexico.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said: “As of today, we have completed the first 100 miles of new border wall system on the southwest border. New wall has been constructed in every border state from California to Texas.”
10. “Last year, our brave ICE officers arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders.”
In January, Matthew Albence, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said:
We arrested 123,000 people convicted of, or charged with, criminal offenses, and these criminals accounted for almost 500,000 convictions and criminal charges, to include 1,900 homicides 10,000 sexual offenses, 1,800 kidnappings, 45,000 assaults, 74,000 DUIs, 67,000 drug-related offenses, and 8,000 gang members.
According to an ICE report last year, among the 123,000 arrests, 4,736 offenses—including charges and convictions—were related to robbery.
11. “Three years ago, the barbarians of ISIS [also known as the Islamic State] held over 20,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria. Today, the ISIS territorial caliphate has been 100% destroyed, and the founder and leader of ISIS—the bloodthirsty killer [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi—is dead.”
The Defense Department reported in December 2018 that the U.S. military, with its partners in the region, “has liberated more than 20,000 square miles of previously held ISIS territory in Syria.”
On Oct. 26, 2019, the Army’s Delta Force killed al-Baghdadi in Syria.


dailysignal--2020-02-05--Guests at State of the Union Showcase Americans Behind Policy Debates

Recent presidents have used the annual State of the Union address to throw a spotlight on Americans who exemplify the nation ’ s ideals and help illustrate policy priorities .
President Donald Trump ’ s guests Tuesday night for his third State of the Union address included some of those on the front lines of the border security fight and the school choice movement .
Lawmakers from the opposition party , in this case Democrats , also invite guests who symbolize issues important to them .
Ellie Schneider .
Born at 21 weeks ’ gestation , Ellie is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
Though not expected to live long , “ Ellie kept beating the odds , exceeding milestones , and fighting for life , ” the White House said in describing her story .
Thanks to excellent medical care , she is now a healthy 2-year-old who attended the State of the Union with her mother , Robin Schneider .
After introducing Ellie , the president announced an increase in funding for neonatal research and touted legislation to ban late-term abortions .
Kelli and Gage Hake .
The U.S. drone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist , Qassim Suleimani , was a victory for all Americans .
But for Kelli Hake and her son Gage , of Stillwater , Oklahoma , the successful mission was personal .
Hake ’ s husband , Army Staff Sgt .
Christopher Hake , died on Easter Sunday 2008 when a roadside bomb exploded under his vehicle during his second tour of duty in Iraq .
Gage , now 13 , was 1 at the time .
U.S. officials said Suleimani , a general who headed Iran ’ s Quds Force , supplied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill and maim American troops .
Since her husband ’ s death , Kelli Hake had been vocal about Suleimani ’ s involvement in the deaths and woundings of U.S. troops .
“ It ’ s not that he physically killed Chris himself , ” she told The New York Times , “ but he was the one who put those motions into action.
” Jody Jones .
The resident of Farmersville , California , lost his brother , Rocky , 51 , when a twice-deported illegal immigrant killed him during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The illegal immigrant had been arrested six times before in connection with other violent crimes , but had been released earlier in the month under California ’ s “ sanctuary state ” policy .
In a 24-hour rampage that began days after his release , he robbed a gas station , injuring several people , then led police on a high-speed chase before murdering Rocky Jones .
He is survived by a daughter as well as Jody and three other brothers .
Stephanie and Janiyah Davis .
Philadelphia resident Stephanie Davis has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needs of her daughter , Janiyah .
Because Pennsylvania does not strongly support school choice for the state ’ s parents and children , according to the White House , Janiyah ’ s love for art and math has been confined to low-performing public schools .
Davis works hard as a single mother in hopes of providing her daughter with a better education , but Janiyah remained among 50,000 students on a waiting list for a tax credit scholarship .
In one of several surprises , Trump announced during his speech that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Courtney Wild .
One of alleged sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein ’ s accusers before his apparent suicide in jail in August , Wild accompanied Rep. Jackie Speier , D-Calif. , to the State of the Union address .
Last summer , Wild testified that Epstein sexually abused her when she was 14 .
Wild ’ s name is on the Courtney Wild Crime Victims ’ Rights Reform Act of 2019 , a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Speier .
The bill would “ require prosecutors to notify sexual assault victims of precharging developments such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The New York Times reported .
Epstein ’ s accusers were not notified that he was able to plead guilty to a lesser set of crimes in Florida in 2008 , resulting in 13 months in a county jail with extensive work release provisions .
Hatice Cengiz .
The fiancee of slain Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi attended the speech as the guest of Rep. Gerry Connolly , D-Va. Khashoggi is believed to have been murdered while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 , and Cengiz has sought justice ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men to death and three others to prison in connection with the murder , Cengiz says she believes those responsible for giving the order are too high up in the Saudi government to face repercussions .
Andrea Chamblee .
Her husband , reporter and editor John McNamara , was among five people killed by a gunman at the The Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis , Maryland .
Chamblee was the guest of Sen. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md.
, to symbolize their support for more restrictions on gun ownership .

Recent presidents have used the annual State of the Union address to throw a spotlight on Americans who exemplify the nation’s ideals and help illustrate policy priorities.
President Donald Trump’s guests Tuesday night for his third State of the Union address included some of those on the front lines of the border security fight and the school choice movement.
Lawmakers from the opposition party, in this case Democrats, also invite guests who symbolize issues important to them.
Trump’s guests included:
Ellie Schneider. Born at 21 weeks and six days, Ellie is one of the most premature babies known to survive in the United States.
Though not expected to live long, “Ellie kept beating the odds, exceeding milestones, and fighting for life,” the White House said in describing her story.
Thanks to excellent medical care, she is now a healthy 2-year-old who attended the State of the Union with her mother, Robin Schneider.
After introducing Ellie, the president announced an increase in funding for neonatal research and touted legislation to ban late-term abortions.
Kelli and Gage Hake. The U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s chief terrorist, Qassim Suleimani, was a victory for all Americans. But for Kelli Hake and her son Gage, of Stillwater, Oklahoma, the successful mission was personal.
Hake’s husband, Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Hake, died on Easter Sunday 2008 when a roadside bomb exploded under his vehicle during his second tour of duty in Iraq. Gage, now 13, was 1 at the time.
U.S. officials said Suleimani, a general who headed Iran’s Quds Force, supplied the bomb as part of a campaign to kill and maim American troops.
Since her husband’s death, Kelli Hake had been vocal about Suleimani’s involvement in the deaths and woundings of U.S. troops.
“It’s not that he physically killed Chris himself,” she told The New York Times, “but he was the one who put those motions into action.”
Jody Jones. The resident of Farmersville, California, lost his brother, Rocky, 51, when a twice-deported illegal immigrant killed him during a shooting spree on Dec. 17, 2018.
The illegal immigrant had been arrested six times before in connection with other violent crimes, but had been released earlier in the month under California’s “sanctuary state” policy.
In a 24-hour rampage that began days after his release, he robbed a gas station, injuring several people, then led police on a high-speed chase before murdering Rocky Jones.
He is survived by a daughter as well as Jody and three other brothers.
Stephanie and Janiyah Davis. Philadelphia resident Stephanie Davis has been searching for a school that meets the needs of her daughter, Janiyah.
Because Pennsylvania does not strongly support school choice for the state’s parents and children, according to the White House, Janiyah’s love for art and math has been confined to low-performing public schools.
Davis works hard as a single mother in hopes of providing her daughter with a better education, but Janiyah remained among 50,000 students on a waiting list for a tax credit scholarship.
In one of several surprises, Trump announced during his speech that the fourth-grader would get a scholarship to enroll in the school of her choice.
For profiles of all of the president’s special guests, go here.
Among Democratic lawmakers’ guests:
Courtney Wild. One of alleged sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers before his apparent suicide in jail in August, Wild accompanied Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., to the State of the Union address. Last summer, Wild testified that Epstein sexually abused her when she was 14.
Wild’s name is on the Courtney Wild Crime Victims’ Rights Reform Act of 2019, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Speier. The bill would “require prosecutors to notify sexual assault victims of precharging developments such as plea bargains and other agreements,” The New York Times reported.
Epstein’s accusers were not notified that he was able to plead guilty to a lesser set of crimes in Florida in 2008, resulting in 13 months in a county jail with extensive work release provisions.
Hatice Cengiz. The fiancee of slain Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi attended the speech as the guest of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.
Khashoggi is believed to have been murdered while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018, and Cengiz has sought justice ever since.
Though Saudi Arabia sentenced five men to death and three others to prison in connection with the murder, Cengiz says she believes those responsible for giving the order are too high up in the Saudi government to face repercussions.
Jamal Khashoggi was my constituent. Tomorrow, his fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, will be my guest to the State of the Union.
May her courage serve as a clarion call to the President that Saudi Arabia must be held accountable. #JusticeForJamalhttps://t.co/88GKbCdCKz — Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) February 3, 2020
Andrea Chamblee. Her husband, reporter and editor John McNamara, was among five people killed by a gunman at the The Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland.
Chamblee was the guest of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., to symbolize their support for more restrictions on gun ownership.