vox--2020-01-17--Yes, the UK media’s coverage of Meghan Markle really is racist

Not agreeing with the concept of a hereditary monarchy in a country where it ’ s celebrated is an odd place to be .
Stranger still is spending your time defending particular members of the royal family after coverage of them turns hostile .
But this is where I ’ ve found myself this past week .
Part of my job as an academic is to examine how racism functions in the UK .
Ever since Meghan Markle , Duchess of Sussex , and Prince Harry announced they were stepping back from their “ roles ” as senior royals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British media about whether the coverage of Markle has been racist .
A debate that has — in a sad but predictable turn of irony — reproduced racism while denying it is prevalent .
The royal family is historically a white institution .
And so when Markle , a biracial woman , became a member , some heralded it as “ progress.
” But in late 2016 , the same year it was announced she and Prince Harry were dating , the prince put out a statement condemning the “ wave of abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjected to .
That included “ the racial undertones of comment pieces ” and “ the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.
” Three years later , Markle talked about the difficulty of dealing with tabloid coverage more broadly , saying it had been “ hard , ” and that adopting “ this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip ” was difficult .
For example , the press has talked about her “ exotic DNA ” ; described her as “ ( almost ) straight outta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very things that Kate Middleton , Prince William ’ s white wife , has been praised for ; and compared the couple ’ s son to a chimpanzee .
But in TV studios around the country , commentators seem to have peculiarly missed all of this .
The coverage of Markle has been welcoming and warm , they say .
And when confronted with the evidence that shows that certainly hasn ’ t always been the tone of reporting , they ask : Is it really racism , though ?
Not all racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtle , quietly shaping the way people are seen , talked about , and treated .
Some , like Piers Morgan , have argued it ’ s not racist to talk about Markle ’ s DNA as “ exotic , ” but this term has colonial roots , long working as a form of othering .
Acknowledging this would mean really grappling with the insidious ways racism operates in the UK , undermining the notion that it is fundamentally a “ tolerant ” and “ progressive ” country .
In the days following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ leaving ” the royal family , the racist — not to mention , sexist — attacks continued .
One poll suggested a significant proportion of people thought it was Markle ’ s decision , not one made jointly or by Prince Harry .
We don ’ t know , and might never discover , all the ins and outs of what prompted their departure from their frontline “ duties.
” But in this telling , Prince Harry ’ s previous admission that he didn ’ t want to be a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power , responsibility , and blame seems to lie with Markle .
This was best encapsulated when one radio host launched into a tirade against her post-announcement .
Although he ’ d never met Markle , he admitted , he thought her “ awful , woke , weak , manipulative , spoilt and irritating…I look at her and I think , ‘ I don ’ t think I would like you in real life.
’ ” Black British rapper Stormzy pinpointed in a characteristically salient way why someone would have this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve never met and who , for the most part , has done little that can really be considered offensive : “ she ’ s just black.
” So much of the reaction to Markle and the couple ’ s decision reads as a belief that she should be grateful for what she gets .
That women of color — in particular black women — should know their place .
Because really , so much of the comment around the Harry and Meghan saga isn ’ t about them at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is understood , and how even beginning to grapple with it is deprioritized and ignored .
This lack of interest in combating , or even challenging , racism has obvious political implications .
The UK ’ s current prime minister , Boris Johnson , has compared Muslim women wearing burqas to letterboxes and described black people as “ picanninies ” with “ watermelon smiles.
” Diane Abbott , the UK ’ s first black woman MP , receives more abuse than any other politician in the UK .
And in the wake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Union , there was a spike in hate crimes .
These forms of aggression don ’ t even get us to the insidious structural racism that produces material inequality , which risks being overlooked in all this talk of the royals .
Studies have shown that to get a job interview , people with African- or Asian-sounding surnames have to send in twice as many CVs as those with white British-sounding surnames — even where they have the same qualifications .
While homelessness has risen across the UK over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproportionately impacted .
And since the 1980s , unemployment rates among women of color have been consistently higher than for white women .
Still , we debate : Is racism a problem in the UK ?
The coverage of Meghan Markle and the recent fallout is just another reminder that it certainly is .
Maya Goodfellow is an academic and writer .
She holds a PhD from SOAS , University of London , and she is the author of Hostile Environment : How Immigrants Became Scapegoats .

Not agreeing with the concept of a hereditary monarchy in a country where it’s celebrated is an odd place to be. Stranger still is spending your time defending particular members of the royal family after coverage of them turns hostile. But this is where I’ve found myself this past week.
Part of my job as an academic is to examine how racism functions in the UK. Ever since Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry announced they were stepping back from their “roles” as senior royals, there’s been a debate in British media about whether the coverage of Markle has been racist. A debate that has — in a sad but predictable turn of irony — reproduced racism while denying it is prevalent.
The royal family is historically a white institution. And so when Markle, a biracial woman, became a member, some heralded it as “progress.” But in late 2016, the same year it was announced she and Prince Harry were dating, the prince put out a statement condemning the “wave of abuse and harassment” Markle had already been subjected to. That included “the racial undertones of comment pieces” and “the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.” Three years later, Markle talked about the difficulty of dealing with tabloid coverage more broadly, saying it had been “hard,” and that adopting “this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip” was difficult.
For example, the press has talked about her “exotic DNA”; described her as “(almost) straight outta Compton”; attacked her for the very things that Kate Middleton, Prince William’s white wife, has been praised for; and compared the couple’s son to a chimpanzee. But in TV studios around the country, commentators seem to have peculiarly missed all of this. The coverage of Markle has been welcoming and warm, they say. And when confronted with the evidence that shows that certainly hasn’t always been the tone of reporting, they ask: Is it really racism, though?
Not all racism is overt. Much of it is subtle, quietly shaping the way people are seen, talked about, and treated. Some, like Piers Morgan, have argued it’s not racist to talk about Markle’s DNA as “exotic,” but this term has colonial roots, long working as a form of othering. Acknowledging this would mean really grappling with the insidious ways racism operates in the UK, undermining the notion that it is fundamentally a “tolerant” and “progressive” country.
In the days following the Sussexes’ announcement that they would be “leaving” the royal family, the racist — not to mention, sexist — attacks continued. One poll suggested a significant proportion of people thought it was Markle’s decision, not one made jointly or by Prince Harry. We don’t know, and might never discover, all the ins and outs of what prompted their departure from their frontline “duties.” But in this telling, Prince Harry’s previous admission that he didn’t want to be a “traditional royal” disappears, and all the power, responsibility, and blame seems to lie with Markle.
This was best encapsulated when one radio host launched into a tirade against her post-announcement. Although he’d never met Markle, he admitted, he thought her “awful, woke, weak, manipulative, spoilt and irritating…I look at her and I think, ‘I don’t think I would like you in real life.’”
Black British rapper Stormzy pinpointed in a characteristically salient way why someone would have this kind of unencumbered hatred for a person they’ve never met and who, for the most part, has done little that can really be considered offensive: “she’s just black.”
So much of the reaction to Markle and the couple’s decision reads as a belief that she should be grateful for what she gets. That women of color — in particular black women — should know their place. Because really, so much of the comment around the Harry and Meghan saga isn’t about them at all. It’s about how poorly racism is understood, and how even beginning to grapple with it is deprioritized and ignored.
This lack of interest in combating, or even challenging, racism has obvious political implications. The UK’s current prime minister, Boris Johnson, has compared Muslim women wearing burqas to letterboxes and described black people as “picanninies” with “watermelon smiles.” Diane Abbott, the UK’s first black woman MP, receives more abuse than any other politician in the UK. And in the wake of the referendum vote on the UK leaving the European Union, there was a spike in hate crimes.
These forms of aggression don’t even get us to the insidious structural racism that produces material inequality, which risks being overlooked in all this talk of the royals. Studies have shown that to get a job interview, people with African- or Asian-sounding surnames have to send in twice as many CVs as those with white British-sounding surnames — even where they have the same qualifications. While homelessness has risen across the UK over the past 10 years, ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted. And since the 1980s, unemployment rates among women of color have been consistently higher than for white women.
Still, we debate: Is racism a problem in the UK? The coverage of Meghan Markle and the recent fallout is just another reminder that it certainly is.
Maya Goodfellow is an academic and writer. She holds a PhD from SOAS, University of London, and she is the author of Hostile Environment: How Immigrants Became Scapegoats.


vox--2020-01-17--9 questions about Trump’s impeachment trial you were too embarrassed to ask

One hundred senators will convene next week to begin their solemn consideration of whether impeached President Donald Trump should be removed from office for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors .
At least , that ’ s the theory .
But here in reality , the big question about Trump ’ s Senate trial is whether the House ’ s allegations will get any serious consideration from the chamber ’ s Republican majority — a majority that , at the trial ’ s conclusion , is all but certain to acquit the president and keep him in office .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and closing arguments , the possibility of witness testimony , Chief Justice John Roberts presiding , and a mostly silent “ jury ” of 100 senators , the event — which began with ceremonial proceedings this week but will substantively kick off on Tuesday , January 21 at 1 pm Eastern — will have many of the trappings of a criminal proceeding .
But this is no ordinary trial .
Senators are tasked with deciding whether to remove the US president from office — something that has never been done before .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They get to make important decisions about how the trial should be organized and unfold .
Rather than being selected for their lack of previous knowledge of the case , they are 100 political animals with preexisting political beliefs , ambitions , and loyalties .
Some key Senate Republicans haven ’ t even tried to pretend the outcome is in question .
“ There is only one outcome that is suited to the paucity of evidence , the failed inquiry , the slapdash case , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up my mind , ” said Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) just days before .
On one level , then , the trial is about whether Trump is guilty of the offenses the House has charged him with — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Yet what ’ s really being determined is whether Donald Trump should continue to serve as president .
So far , more than enough Senate Republicans clearly think the answer is yes .
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to hold federal officers accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment process .
But that process unfolds in two steps .
First , the House of Representatives decides whether to impeach — essentially , whether to charge with wrongdoing .
( The House did that for Trump last month . )
Second , it ’ s up to the Senate to decide whether the official is guilty of that wrongdoing , for which the punishment entails removal from office .
The Senate does this by holding a trial .
There have been 19 such trials in US history — 15 for federal judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the Senate concluded that senators can ’ t be impeached ) , one for a Cabinet officer , and , most momentously , two for presidents ( Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 ) .
Trump ’ s Senate trial will focus on the two articles of impeachment approved by the House .
Article I , “ Abuse of Power , ” accuses Trump of pressuring the Ukrainian government into announcing an investigation into the Bidens by withholding both a White House meeting and military aid .
Article II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accuses Trump of trying to impede the impeachment inquiry by urging government agencies not to comply with subpoenas and witnesses not to cooperate .
These trials typically end in a final vote on each article of impeachment .
A vote to convict on even one article means the official is ousted .
But , crucially , conviction requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate ; a simple majority won ’ t do the trick .
That means it would take 67 senators to remove Trump , and that ’ s a very high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is somehow cleared , Trump would be ousted , and Vice President Mike Pence would become president of the United States .
2 ) Are there prosecutors , defense , and a judge , like an ordinary trial ?
A presidential impeachment trial is a rare proceeding involving all three branches of the federal government ( and both houses of Congress ) , with a structure broadly resembling a criminal trial .
The players are : The House impeachment managers ( the prosecutors ) : This week , Speaker Nancy Pelosi named seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that Trump should be removed from office in the Senate .
They are Reps. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) , Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) , Val Demings ( D-FL ) , Jason Crow ( D-CO ) , Sylvia Garcia ( D-TX ) , and Zoe Lofgren ( D-CA ) .
Trump ’ s team ( the defense ) : The president has to designate representatives to defend him , as well .
So far , we know White House counsel Pat Cipollone will lead the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow , as well as Michael Purpura and Patrick Philibin from the White House Counsel ’ s Office .
The New York Times reports that the team will also include Ken Starr ( the independent counsel who helped spur Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment ) , Robert Ray ( who succeeded Starr in that post ) , and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz .
Chief Justice John Roberts ( the judge , sort of ) : The chief justice “ shall preside ” over a presidential impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we ’ ll discuss , it ’ s not clear how substantive that role is or how assertive Roberts will be in it .
The Senate ( the jury , sort of , but also the court ) : The trial is conducted for the benefit of the 100 senators , who will eventually decide whether to remove the president from office or keep him there .
And like jurors in a criminal trial , senators mostly aren ’ t permitted to speak at the trial ; they ’ re supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurors , the Senate will make decisions on how to run the trial , with contested decisions being brought to a vote in the chamber .
Since there are 53 Republican senators and 47 Democrats , the GOP will have the upper hand in making those decisions — so long as they can keep their moderate members in line .
3 ) How have previous impeachment trials played out ?
Though the Senate has a set of impeachment rules , those rules do little to settle key questions about how Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How long will it take ?
What evidence will be admitted ?
Will witnesses be called ?
All these questions are really up to the Senate to decide .
We can expect proceedings to be bookended by opening and closing arguments from each side , as in a criminal trial .
But what comes in between for Trump is yet to be determined , and it varied greatly for Andrew Johnson ’ s and Bill Clinton ’ s trials .
Johnson ’ s 1868 trial took nearly two months from start to finish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether Johnson violated a new law , the Tenure of Office Act , by firing his secretary of war without the Senate ’ s approval .
Several administration officials were called to testify by each side about Johnson ’ s actions .
The outcome appeared genuinely in the balance as the Senate prepared to vote on a verdict , with all manner of behind-the-scenes shenanigans unfolding .
Clinton ’ s 1999 trial lasted about one month .
He was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in his effort to cover up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , due to his high approval rating and continued support among most Democrats , he was widely expected to be acquitted .
Things kicked off on the Senate floor with televised opening arguments and a period during which each side answered written questions submitted by senators .
Then the GOP-controlled Senate voted to approve the proposal of House impeachment managers to call three witnesses — Lewinsky , plus Clinton allies Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal — for videotaped closed-door depositions .
But that testimony ( which was soon released publicly ) didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was clear the GOP lacked the votes to convict .
So the Senate decided to pull the plug , voting to deny a request from House Republicans to call Lewinsky for another round of questioning and to schedule an end date for the trial without any new witnesses .
After that , action resumed in televised Senate floor proceedings with a presentation of evidence from each side and closing arguments .
What followed were several days of speechmaking by senators behind closed doors ( with many senators subsequently releasing their remarks ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verdict for each article .
4 ) When will the trial be — and how long will it take ?
The trial technically began with the ceremonial presentation of the articles of impeachment last Thursday — but the real action will kick off on Tuesday , January 21 , at 1 pm Eastern .
The , the Senate will begin by voting on McConnell ’ s plan for structuring the trial , and on a proposed Democratic alternative .
After that , opening arguments will begin , with the House impeachment managers going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense team .
When it comes to the trial ’ s length , McConnell has reportedly said in private that he wants a short trial , lasting around two weeks , with no witnesses called to testify .
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , though , has publicly called for testimony from four witnesses with knowledge of the Ukraine scandal : acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , former National Security Adviser John Bolton , White House aide Rob Blair , and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen .
He has locked down the Republican votes necessary to begin the trial without resolving the witness question ( as the Senate did in 1999 ) .
But Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) has said she ’ s trying to strike a deal to allow testimony from some witnesses .
Bolton ’ s recent announcement that he would comply with any Senate subpoena for his testimony may make it harder for Republicans to justify skipping witnesses ( though President Trump has also suggested he may try to block Bolton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 ) But McConnell is just going to call all the shots , right ?
So long as McConnell can keep his party together , yes , he will essentially call the shots for Trump ’ s trial .
And he has done that so far — though on certain issues , he might find it more difficult .
The math of impeachment votes is somewhat unusual for the Senate .
The vote on a final verdict , as mentioned , needs 67 yeses to pass .
But measures before that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vice President Pence , who can usually break ties in the Senate , is not expected to vote on any impeachment matters .
( He has a bit of a conflict of interest , since he ’ d become president if Trump is removed . )
For McConnell to pass a partisan measure , he ’ ll need to keep 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans together .
That would mean he needs to keep at least one of the expected trio of swing votes — Sens .
Collins , Lisa Murkowski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-UT ) — on his side .
And all have signaled that they will back McConnell ’ s plan to start the trial without resolving the witness question .
Meanwhile , for Democrats to get a measure of their own passed , they ’ d likely need to win over four Republicans ( 47 Democrats plus four Republicans equals a 51-vote majority ) .
In addition to the aforementioned trio , they ’ d need someone else .
CNN has proposed several possibilities , but the incentives for partisanship are strong in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things further , there ’ s the question of the chief justice .
6 ) What will Chief Justice John Roberts do ?
The Senate impeachment rules give the presiding officer — in this case , Chief Justice Roberts — power to rule on “ all questions of evidence , ” specific questions from senators to be put to witnesses or counsel , and motions .
That could give him enormous influence on how the trial plays out .
But there ’ s a big catch : The Senate can reject any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , the specifics of Roberts ’ s ruling could influence how senators make up their minds ( theoretically , key swing vote Republicans could be hesitant to overrule Roberts ) .
The real question is whether Roberts will choose to take a hands-on role or not .
He would have a precedent for doing so .
For the first presidential impeachment trial , that of Andrew Johnson in 1868 , Chief Justice Salmon Chase demanded to play an active role , as Brenda Wineapple chronicles in her book The Impeachers .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scope of testimony , Chase even decided he would have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate ( something usually done by the vice president ) .
Chase cast two tie-breaking votes , but this was controversial at the time — and while the Senate let the votes stand , they ’ ve never quite officially said the chief justice can do this .
( Asked whether Roberts would break ties , a spokesperson for McConnell seemed to signal otherwise to Vox ’ s Li Zhou , “ Anything that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial , ties lose.
” ) Yet Roberts also has a sharply different model he can follow .
When the next presidential impeachment trial came around 131 years later , Chief Justice William Rehnquist ’ s main objective was to stay out the way .
Rehnquist wanted to let the Senate take the lead and run Bill Clinton ’ s trial as they saw fit , so he declined to rule on contested issues .
He ’ d just refer any controversial questions to the full Senate for a vote .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of note was that House impeachment managers should stop addressing senators as “ jurors ” — because , he said , the Senate is “ not simply a jury ” but “ also a court.
” After things wrapped up , he summarized his role by saying , “ I did nothing in particular and I did it very well.
” So it ’ s up to Roberts whether he ’ ll interpret his role like Chase , Rehnquist , or somewhere in between .
Importantly , though , the nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time .
Chase was a political animal — indeed , he was angling for the Democratic presidential nomination the same year of Johnson ’ s trial .
In contrast , Roberts wants himself and the Supreme Court itself to have the appearance of being above grubby partisan politics .
That would seem to suggest he ’ d take on more of a restrained role , like that of Rehnquist .
Then again , he could also think of himself as an impartial arbiter helping to broker compromises that make our political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify intervening .
Again , it ’ s up to him .
7 ) Will Trump show up and testify ?
The president has claimed he would “ strongly consider ” testifying in the impeachment inquiry at some point .
But most in Washington very much do not expect that to happen .
Remember , Trump also frequently claimed he ’ d be happy to do an interview with former special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia probe , but he ended up submitting just one written set of heavily lawyered answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly hoping he won ’ t testify .
And neither Johnson nor Clinton showed up to their impeachment trials , preferring to let their defense teams do the talking .
But Trump is known for wanting to take a prominent role in his own messaging .
Plus , his acquittal certainly seems safe at this point , given the supermajority required for conviction and the existing GOP majority .
What does he have to lose ?
Why not show up , give the Democrats a piece of his mind , and get some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably won ’ t , though .
Probably .
Unless there ’ s a successful motion to dismiss the charges against Trump , what lies at the end of all this are Senate votes on whether he ’ s guilty or not guilty of each charge ( abuse of power and obstruction of Congress ) .
As presented , the question for senators may seem simple : Did Trump do what he ’ s accused of doing ?
But the true question lurking beneath this is : Should Trump be removed from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher bar .
Take , for instance , the Clinton impeachment .
Some senators believed he was , in fact , guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice but still concluded he should not be removed from office .
Politics naturally played a role .
Clinton was overwhelmingly popular , large majorities of the public opposed his removal , and Republicans came to believe impeachment was a political loser after their weak performance in the 1998 midterms .
But senators also invoked the greater good of the country , arguing it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public clearly supported .
( No Democrats voted to convict Clinton , and several Republicans joined them in voting to acquit . )
As for Johnson , one major factor in his acquittal was who would have replaced him : Ben Wade , the Senate ’ s president pro tempore ( since Johnson had no vice president after succeeding the assassinated Abraham Lincoln ) .
Wade was viewed even by many mainstream members of his party as an extremist ( due to , among other matters , his support for voting rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Convicting Johnson meant making Wade president , and some Republicans feared that would sink the chances of their nominee for president in the election later that year : Ulysses S. Grant .
There may have been baser motives at play , too .
After Johnson was acquitted by a single vote ( due to a late switch by Sen. Edmund Ross ) , the House immediately launched an investigation into whether key senators had been bribed .
In Wineapple ’ s telling , the investigation found “ a great deal of smoke ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For Trump , though , the likely determining factor will be simple partisanship .
The president is unpopular overall , but the vast majority of Republican voters continue to strongly support him .
The impeachment inquiry and its revelations about quid pro quos haven ’ t changed that .
The safe bet for senators who seek a political future in the GOP continues to be to stand by Trump .
9 ) Is there even a chance that Trump gets removed ?
Or charged criminally ?
As far as criminal charges go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved for Trump are not ordinary federal crimes .
Rather , they ’ re constitutional “ high crimes and misdemeanors.
” Whether Trump committed any criminal wrongdoing in connection to the Ukraine scandal would be up to the Justice Department to determine .
And , they ’ ve said , they won ’ t charge a sitting president with a crime .
( Should Trump lose reelection in 2020 , though , it ’ s possible that a Justice Department of his successor , under new leadership , would scrutinize his conduct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial — well , never say never .
But Trump technically needs only 34 Senate supporters to vote for his acquittal .
There are 53 Senate Republicans , which means that at least 20 would have to defect and vote to convict him .
For that to happen , there would have to be some truly shocking developments .
Keep in mind that almost all of these Senate Republicans have spent the past few years supporting Trump and standing by him — and that zero Republicans in the House voted to impeach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ukraine scandal , Republicans have offered a variety of justifications for keeping Trump around .
Some say they ’ re just respecting the will of the voters ( in key Electoral College states ) ; some say this is all a partisan plot from Democrats ; some say Trump did nothing wrong ; some say the House just didn ’ t get enough evidence .
It ’ s not inconceivable that new significant evidence will emerge .
But even then , it would take a true earthquake to result in 20 Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Trump ’ s popularity finally plummeting among Republican voters .
So far , though , he has avoided that fate — and unless that changes , he ’ s overwhelmingly likely to finish out his term .

One hundred senators are convening to solemnly consider whether impeached President Donald Trump should be removed from office for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
At least, that’s the theory.
But here in reality, the big question about Trump’s Senate trial is whether the House’s allegations will get any serious consideration from the chamber’s Republican majority — a majority that, at the trial’s conclusion, is all but certain to acquit the president and keep him in office.
With a prosecution and defense team, opening and closing arguments, the possibility of witness testimony, Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, and a mostly silent “jury” of 100 senators, the event has the trappings of a criminal proceeding.
But this is no ordinary trial. Senators are tasked with deciding whether to remove the US president from office — something that has never been done before.
And the Senate is no ordinary jury. They get to make important decisions about how the trial should be organized and unfold. Rather than being selected for their lack of previous knowledge of the case, they are 100 political animals with preexisting political beliefs, ambitions, and loyalties.
Some key Senate Republicans haven’t even tried to pretend the outcome is in question. “There is only one outcome that is suited to the paucity of evidence, the failed inquiry, the slapdash case,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month. “I have clearly made up my mind,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
On one level, then, the trial is about whether Trump is guilty of the offenses the House has charged him with — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Yet what’s really being determined is whether Donald Trump should continue to serve as president. So far, more than enough Senate Republicans clearly think the answer is yes.
1) What is a Senate impeachment trial?
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to hold federal officers accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors through the impeachment process. But that process unfolds in two steps. First, the House of Representatives decides whether to impeach — essentially, whether to charge with wrongdoing. (The House already did that for Trump.) Second, it’s up to the Senate to decide whether the official is guilty of that wrongdoing, for which the punishment entails removal from office.
The Senate does this by holding a trial. There have been 19 such trials in US history — 15 for federal judges, one for a senator (after which the Senate concluded that senators can’t be impeached), one for a Cabinet officer, and, most momentously, two for presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999).
Trump’s Senate trial will focus on the two articles of impeachment approved by the House. Article I, “Abuse of Power,” accuses Trump of pressuring the Ukrainian government into announcing an investigation into the Bidens by withholding both a White House meeting and military aid. Article II, “Obstruction of Congress,” accuses Trump of trying to impede the impeachment inquiry by urging government agencies not to comply with subpoenas and witnesses not to cooperate.
These trials typically end in a final vote on each article of impeachment. A vote to convict on even one article means the official is ousted. But, crucially, conviction requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate; a simple majority won’t do the trick. That means it would take 67 senators to remove Trump, and that’s a very high bar to clear. But if it is somehow cleared, Trump would be ousted, and Vice President Mike Pence would become president of the United States.
2) Are there prosecutors, defense, and a judge, like an ordinary trial?
A presidential impeachment trial is a rare proceeding involving all three branches of the federal government (and both houses of Congress), with a structure broadly resembling a criminal trial. The players are:
The House impeachment managers (the prosecutors): They are Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Val Demings (D-FL), Jason Crow (D-CO), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).
Trump’s team (the defense): The president has to designate representatives to defend him, as well. White House counsel Pat Cipollone will lead the team, and it will also include Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, as well as Michael Purpura and Patrick Philibin from the White House Counsel’s Office as well as Ken Starr (the independent counsel who helped spur Bill Clinton’s impeachment), Robert Ray (who succeeded Starr in that post), and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
Chief Justice John Roberts (the judge, sort of): The chief justice “shall preside” over a presidential impeachment trial, per the Constitution. But, as we’ll discuss, it’s not clear how substantive that role is.
The Senate (the jury, sort of, but also the court): The trial is conducted for the benefit of the 100 senators, who will eventually decide whether to remove the president from office or keep him there. And like jurors in a criminal trial, senators mostly aren’t permitted to speak at the trial; they’re supposed to observe silently.
However, unlike ordinary jurors, the Senate will make decisions on how to run the trial, with contested decisions being brought to a vote in the chamber. Since there are 53 Republican senators and 47 Democrats, the GOP will have the upper hand in making those decisions — so long as they can keep their moderate members in line.
3) How have previous impeachment trials played out?
Though the Senate has a set of impeachment rules, those rules do little to settle key questions about how Trump’s trial will be structured and proceed. How long will it take? What evidence will be admitted? Will witnesses be called? All these questions are really up to the Senate to decide.
We can expect proceedings to be bookended by opening and closing arguments from each side, as in a criminal trial. But what comes in between for Trump is yet to be determined, and it varied greatly for Andrew Johnson’s and Bill Clinton’s trials.
Johnson’s 1868 trial took nearly two months from start to finish. The impeachment articles there focused mainly on whether Johnson violated a new law, the Tenure of Office Act, by firing his secretary of war without the Senate’s approval. Several administration officials were called to testify by each side about Johnson’s actions. The outcome appeared genuinely in the balance as the Senate prepared to vote on a verdict, with all manner of behind-the-scenes shenanigans unfolding.
Clinton’s 1999 trial lasted about one month. He was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in his effort to cover up his affair with Monica Lewinsky — and, due to his high approval rating and continued support among most Democrats, he was widely expected to be acquitted. Things kicked off on the Senate floor with televised opening arguments and a period during which each side answered written questions submitted by senators. Then the GOP-controlled Senate voted to approve the proposal of House impeachment managers to call three witnesses — Lewinsky, plus Clinton allies Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal — for videotaped closed-door depositions.
But that testimony (which was soon released publicly) didn’t produce any revelations, and it was clear the GOP lacked the votes to convict. So the Senate decided to pull the plug, voting to deny a request from House Republicans to call Lewinsky for another round of questioning and to schedule an end date for the trial without any new witnesses. After that, action resumed in televised Senate floor proceedings with a presentation of evidence from each side and closing arguments. What followed were several days of speechmaking by senators behind closed doors (with many senators subsequently releasing their remarks), and finally, public votes on a verdict for each article.
4) How long will the trial take?
The trial technically began with the ceremonial presentation of the articles of impeachment — but the real action kicked off on Tuesday, January 21.
The Senate began by voting on McConnell’s plan for structuring the trial, and on a proposed Democratic alternative. After that, opening arguments began, with the House impeachment managers going first, followed by Trump’s defense team.
McConnell reportedly said in private that he wants a short trial, lasting around two weeks, with no witnesses called to testify. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, though, has publicly called for testimony from four witnesses with knowledge of the Ukraine scandal: acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, White House aide Rob Blair, and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.
McConnel locked down the Republican votes necessary to begin the trial without resolving the witness question (as the Senate did in 1999). Bolton’s recent announcement that he would comply with any Senate subpoena for his testimony made it harder for Republicans to justify skipping witnesses (though President Trump has also suggested he may try to block Bolton’s testimony through executive privilege). Whether McConnell will get his way remains to be seen, although it looks likely after key swing votes announced during the trial they would not call for more witnesses.
5) But McConnell is just going to call all the shots, right?
So long as McConnell can keep his party together, yes, he will essentially call the shots for Trump’s trial. And he has done that so far — though on certain issues, he might find it more difficult.
The math of impeachment votes is somewhat unusual for the Senate. The vote on a final verdict, as mentioned, needs 67 yeses to pass. But measures before that can be approved by a simple majority. However, Vice President Pence, who can usually break ties in the Senate, is not expected to vote on any impeachment matters. (He has a bit of a conflict of interest, since he’d become president if Trump is removed.)
For McConnell to pass a partisan measure, he’ll need to keep 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans together. That would mean he needs to keep at least one of the expected trio of swing votes — Sens. Collins, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Mitt Romney (R-UT) — on his side.
Meanwhile, for Democrats to get a measure of their own passed, they’d likely need to win over four Republicans (47 Democrats plus four Republicans equals a 51-vote majority). In addition to the aforementioned trio, they’d need someone else. CNN has proposed several possibilities, but the incentives for partisanship are strong in the Senate.
And, to complicate things further, there’s the question of the chief justice.
6) What is Chief Justice John Roberts’s role?
The Senate impeachment rules give the presiding officer — in this case, Chief Justice Roberts — power to rule on “all questions of evidence,” specific questions from senators to be put to witnesses or counsel, and motions. That could give him enormous influence on how the trial plays out.
But there’s a big catch: The Senate can reject any of his rulings with a majority vote. Still, the specifics of Roberts’s ruling could influence how senators make up their minds (theoretically, key swing vote Republicans could be hesitant to overrule Roberts).
Roberts has precedent for a hands-on role. For the first presidential impeachment trial, that of Andrew Johnson in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase demanded to play an active role, as Brenda Wineapple chronicles in her book The Impeachers. In addition to ruling on evidence and the scope of testimony, Chase even decided he would have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate (something usually done by the vice president).
Chase cast two tie-breaking votes, but this was controversial at the time — and while the Senate let the votes stand, they’ve never quite officially said the chief justice can do this. (Asked whether Roberts would break ties, a spokesperson for McConnell seemed to signal otherwise to Vox’s Li Zhou, “Anything that is put to a vote during an impeachment trial, ties lose.”)
Yet Roberts also has a sharply different model he can follow. When the next presidential impeachment trial came around 131 years later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s main objective was to stay out the way. Rehnquist wanted to let the Senate take the lead and run Bill Clinton’s trial as they saw fit, so he declined to rule on contested issues. He’d just refer any controversial questions to the full Senate for a vote.
Indeed, Rehnquist’s sole “ruling” of note was that House impeachment managers should stop addressing senators as “jurors” — because, he said, the Senate is “not simply a jury” but “also a court.” After things wrapped up, he summarized his role by saying, “I did nothing in particular and I did it very well.”
So it’s up to Roberts whether he’ll interpret his role like Chase, Rehnquist, or somewhere in between. Importantly, though, the nature of the Supreme Court has changed since Chase’s time. Chase was a political animal — indeed, he was angling for the Democratic presidential nomination the same year of Johnson’s trial.
In contrast, Roberts wants himself and the Supreme Court itself to have the appearance of being above grubby partisan politics. That would seem to suggest he’d take on more of a restrained role, like that of Rehnquist. Then again, he could also think of himself as an impartial arbiter helping to broker compromises that make our political system more functional, and use that to justify intervening. Again, it’s up to him.
7) Will Trump show up and testify?
The president has claimed he would “strongly consider” testifying in the impeachment inquiry at some point. But most in Washington very much do not expect that to happen. Remember, Trump also frequently claimed he’d be happy to do an interview with former special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russia probe, but he ended up submitting just one written set of heavily lawyered answers.
Trump’s legal team is certainly hoping he won’t testify. And neither Johnson nor Clinton showed up to their impeachment trials, preferring to let their defense teams do the talking.
But Trump is known for wanting to take a prominent role in his own messaging. Plus, his acquittal certainly seems safe at this point, given the supermajority required for conviction and the existing GOP majority. What does he have to lose? Why not show up, give the Democrats a piece of his mind, and get some credit for his inevitable victory?
He probably won’t, though. Probably.
8) How will senators decide a verdict?
Unless there’s a successful motion to dismiss the charges against Trump, what lies at the end of all this are Senate votes on whether he’s guilty or not guilty of each charge (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress).
As presented, the question for senators may seem simple: Did Trump do what he’s accused of doing? But the true question lurking beneath this is: Should Trump be removed from the White House?
And that’s a higher bar. Take, for instance, the Clinton impeachment. Some senators believed he was, in fact, guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice but still concluded he should not be removed from office.
Politics naturally played a role. Clinton was overwhelmingly popular, large majorities of the public opposed his removal, and Republicans came to believe impeachment was a political loser after their weak performance in the 1998 midterms. But senators also invoked the greater good of the country, arguing it would be a mistake to remove a president the public clearly supported. (No Democrats voted to convict Clinton, and several Republicans joined them in voting to acquit.)
As for Johnson, one major factor in his acquittal was who would have replaced him: Ben Wade, the Senate’s president pro tempore (since Johnson had no vice president after succeeding the assassinated Abraham Lincoln). Wade was viewed even by many mainstream members of his party as an extremist (due to, among other matters, his support for voting rights for freedmen and even women). Convicting Johnson meant making Wade president, and some Republicans feared that would sink the chances of their nominee for president in the election later that year: Ulysses S. Grant.
There may have been baser motives at play, too. After Johnson was acquitted by a single vote (due to a late switch by Sen. Edmund Ross), the House immediately launched an investigation into whether key senators had been bribed. In Wineapple’s telling, the investigation found “a great deal of smoke” but couldn’t outright prove bribery.
For Trump, though, the likely determining factor will be simple partisanship. The president is unpopular overall, but the vast majority of Republican voters continue to strongly support him. The impeachment inquiry and its revelations about quid pro quos haven’t changed that. The safe bet for senators who seek a political future in the GOP continues to be to stand by Trump.
9) Is there even a chance that Trump gets removed? Or charged criminally?
As far as criminal charges go, the articles of impeachment the House approved for Trump are not ordinary federal crimes. Rather, they’re constitutional “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Whether Trump committed any criminal wrongdoing in connection to the Ukraine scandal would be up to the Justice Department to determine. And, they’ve said, they won’t charge a sitting president with a crime. (Should Trump lose reelection in 2020, though, it’s possible that a Justice Department of his successor, under new leadership, would scrutinize his conduct.)
As for removal from office in the trial — well, never say never. But Trump technically needs only 34 Senate supporters to vote for his acquittal. There are 53 Senate Republicans, which means that at least 20 would have to defect and vote to convict him.
For that to happen, there would have to be some truly shocking developments. Keep in mind that almost all of these Senate Republicans have spent the past few years supporting Trump and standing by him — and that zero Republicans in the House voted to impeach him.
Despite the damning facts in the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have offered a variety of justifications for keeping Trump around. Some say they’re just respecting the will of the voters (in key Electoral College states); some say this is all a partisan plot from Democrats; some say Trump did nothing wrong; some say the House just didn’t get enough evidence.
It’s not inconceivable that new significant evidence will emerge. But even then, it would take a true earthquake to result in 20 Republican defections. What would likely be required is Trump’s popularity finally plummeting among Republican voters. So far, though, he has avoided that fate — and unless that changes, he’s overwhelmingly likely to finish out his term.


vox--2020-01-17--Trump’s prayer event began with an inaccurate 2016 election map and ended with a rage-tweet

An event at the White House Thursday meant to promote prayer in public schools indicated that President Donald Trump is struggling to deal with the strain of his impeachment trial .
As Chief Justice John Roberts was being sworn in to oversee that affair , Trump was a few miles away , surrounded by a group of students and teachers who were there to praise him for waging war on secularism in schools .
In front of him on the Resolute desk was a map that appeared to divide the country into a red/blue map based on the 2016 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing with the map .
It just sat there in front of him , unmentioned , for the entire half-hour event .
And while the map appeared to be very red — an emotionally reassuring symbol of his popularity — Twitter sleuths quickly determined it wasn ’ t entirely accurate .
Some counties that went for Hillary Clinton were colored red .
As it turned out , exaggerating about his popularity was far from the only lie Trump pushed during a prayer event that also exposed the hollowness of his efforts to shore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pack of lies and then lost it on Twitter The purpose of the event was ostensibly to promote new federal guidance for prayer in public schools .
It began with Trump lamenting the supposed inability of students to pray on football fields , and criticized the “ growing totalitarian impulse on the far left ” that he claims wants to “ prohibit religious expression.
” Though those comments suggest otherwise , the actual text of the guidance is fairly boilerplate and explicitly says “ Teachers and other public school officials ... may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devotional readings from the Bible , or other religious activities , nor may school officials use their authority to attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities.
” A statement from the American Civil Liberties Union characterized it as “ nearly identical to the existing guidance issued in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.
” Trump , however , reassured students who told brief stories about having expressions of their religion suppressed in schools that he wouldn ’ t stand for it .
That sort of pandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump , who as president has tried to ban people from Muslim-majority countries from coming to the United States while leaning into his support from Christians .
Also typical for Trump was a quip he made a few minutes later about shredding the Constitution and serving more than two terms in office .
“ So while I ’ m president — which will be hopefully for five years , and I dunno , maybe we ’ ll work with the media on a major extension of that — but we will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ square , ” he said , while the students and teachers behind him chuckled .
After a number of testimonials from students and others , Trump took questions from reporters .
The only one he took on a topic related to religion exposed how transactional his thinking is , even when it comes to matters of faith .
Asked why Catholics should vote for him later this year , Trump said , “ I have a great relationship with Catholics .
I ’ ve done so much for Catholics .
You take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made no mention of his own views or why he thinks faith is important in the first place — he just pointed to one position he has that the Catholic Church agrees with him on .
But perhaps the most memorable thing about the event was the string of dubious claims Trump pushed as reporters asked him about impeachment .
Asked about Lev Parnas , a former fixer for Rudy Giuliani who has deeply implicated him in the efforts to pervert Ukrainian diplomacy that resulted in his impeachment , Trump claimed 13 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know Parnas .
“ I don ’ t know him .
I don ’ t know Parnas other than I guess I had pictures taken ” with him , Trump said .
“ I don ’ t know him at all.
” Parnas ’ s credibility is questionable — he ’ s under indictment for campaign finance crimes — but at the very least , the two men seem to have known each other in passing .
Moments after the event ended , Parnas ’ s attorney posted a video that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together in December 2016 — which makes Trump ’ s claims to know nothing about the man hard to buy .
Trump ’ s eyebrow-raising comments about Parnas reflected a broader lack of truthfulness about the facts surrounding the Ukraine scheme — one that included telling a series of easily fact-checkable lies about the timeline of the impeachment process .
He claimed a whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about his Ukraine dealings “ wrote a report that bore no relationship to what was said ” during his infamous July 2019 call with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House corroborated key aspects of it .
He accused House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff of lying about his call with Zelensky , only to be set straight once the White House released a summary of the conversation , but in fact he had it backward — the paraphrasing Trump is mad about happened during a hearing held about the call summary ’ s release .
As soon as Trump wrapped up his lengthy and factually incorrect harangue about impeachment , one of his handlers started screaming at reporters to exit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an all-caps rage-tweet that simultaneously mischaracterized his phone call with Zelensky and didn ’ t reflect a prayerful attitude .
Even though he never mentioned it , the map on Trump ’ s desk during the event alludes to his real defense of his conduct — to the winner go the spoils , and he won big in 2016 ( never mind that land doesn ’ t vote , and that more voters supported Hillary Clinton ) .
It ’ s telling , however , that even when the truth will suffice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
And this lie , like many others Trump tells , is impervious to correction .
The inaccurate election map “ has been a talisman [ for Trump ] since soon after [ then-Attorney General Jeff ] Sessions recused from the Russia probe , ” New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after the event .
“ He started handing them out to people shortly before [ special counsel Robert ] Mueller was named ; aides got the first large one to frame the day after [ FBI Director James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Russia probe nearly three years ago .
Yet in all that time , nobody around Trump has bothered to get him a map that doesn ’ t exaggerate his popularity in a way that erases the plurality of people who didn ’ t support him .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

An event at the White House Thursday meant to promote prayer in public schools indicated that President Donald Trump is struggling to deal with the strain of his impeachment trial.
As Chief Justice John Roberts was being sworn in to oversee that affair, Trump was a few miles away, surrounded by a group of students and teachers who were there to praise him for waging war on secularism in schools. In front of him on the Resolute desk was a map that appeared to divide the country into a red/blue map based on the 2016 election results.
Trump, however, did nothing with the map. It just sat there in front of him, unmentioned, for the entire half-hour event. And while the map appeared to be very red — an emotionally reassuring symbol of his popularity — Twitter sleuths quickly determined it wasn’t entirely accurate. Some counties that went for Hillary Clinton were colored red.
For instance, this is Alaska by county pic.twitter.com/HwO9XmGIl8 — Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 17, 2020
As it turned out, exaggerating about his popularity was far from the only lie Trump pushed during a prayer event that also exposed the hollowness of his efforts to shore up his evangelical base.
Trump told a pack of lies and then lost it on Twitter
The purpose of the event was ostensibly to promote new federal guidance for prayer in public schools. It began with Trump lamenting the supposed inability of students to pray on football fields, and criticized the “growing totalitarian impulse on the far left” that he claims wants to “prohibit religious expression.”
At his White House prayer event, Trump laments that students are prevented from praying on the football field (what?), and then criticizes the "growing totalitarian impulse on the far left" that he claims wants to "prohibit religious expression." pic.twitter.com/URMDoRH9uO — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020
Though those comments suggest otherwise, the actual text of the guidance is fairly boilerplate and explicitly says “Teachers and other public school officials ... may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities, nor may school officials use their authority to attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities.” A statement from the American Civil Liberties Union characterized it as “nearly identical to the existing guidance issued in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.”
Trump, however, reassured students who told brief stories about having expressions of their religion suppressed in schools that he wouldn’t stand for it. That sort of pandering stuff is pretty par for the course for Trump, who as president has tried to ban people from Muslim-majority countries from coming to the United States while leaning into his support from Christians. Also typical for Trump was a quip he made a few minutes later about shredding the Constitution and serving more than two terms in office.
“So while I’m president — which will be hopefully for five years, and I dunno, maybe we’ll work with the media on a major extension of that — but we will not let anyone push God from the public square,” he said, while the students and teachers behind him chuckled.
Trump jokes about shredding the Constitution and serving more than 2 terms during the White House prayer event: "So while I'm president -- which will be hopefully for 5 years and I dunno, maybe we'll work with the media on a major extension of that." pic.twitter.com/bnusrVMuzu — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020
After a number of testimonials from students and others, Trump took questions from reporters. The only one he took on a topic related to religion exposed how transactional his thinking is, even when it comes to matters of faith.
Asked why Catholics should vote for him later this year, Trump said, “I have a great relationship with Catholics. I’ve done so much for Catholics. You take a look at the abortion issue.” He made no mention of his own views or why he thinks faith is important in the first place — he just pointed to one position he has that the Catholic Church agrees with him on.
REPORTER: What's your message to the millions of Catholics in the United States? Why should they vote for you?
TRUMP: "Well I have a great relationship with Catholics. I've done so much for Catholics. You take a look at the abortion issue."
That's it. Entirely transactional. pic.twitter.com/Dpi4pgPaLJ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020
But perhaps the most memorable thing about the event was the string of dubious claims Trump pushed as reporters asked him about impeachment. Asked about Lev Parnas, a former fixer for Rudy Giuliani who has deeply implicated him in the efforts to pervert Ukrainian diplomacy that resulted in his impeachment, Trump claimed 13 times over his two-minute response that he doesn’t know Parnas.
“I don’t know him. I don’t know Parnas other than I guess I had pictures taken” with him, Trump said. “I don’t know him at all.”
Here's Trump claiming he doesn't know Lev Parnas, who he posed for numerous photos with, thirteen (13) different times in a video clip that ends with him shushing a reporter pic.twitter.com/awwOqx343D — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020
Parnas’s credibility is questionable — he’s under indictment for campaign finance crimes — but at the very least, the two men seem to have known each other in passing.
Moments after the event ended, Parnas’s attorney posted a video that appears to show Parnas and Trump partying together in December 2016 — which makes Trump’s claims to know nothing about the man hard to buy.
Here’s the “I don’t know him at all, don’t know what he’s about, don’t know where he comes from, know nothing about him” guy, w Lev Parnas & Roman Nasirov, former head of Ukrainian Fiscal Service, at Mar-a-Lago 12/16. @POTUS .@realDonaldTrump @Acosta #LevRemembers #LetLevSpeak pic.twitter.com/5B5QY2DJEg — Joseph A. Bondy (@josephabondy) January 16, 2020
Trump’s eyebrow-raising comments about Parnas reflected a broader lack of truthfulness about the facts surrounding the Ukraine scheme — one that included telling a series of easily fact-checkable lies about the timeline of the impeachment process.
He claimed a whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about his Ukraine dealings “wrote a report that bore no relationship to what was said” during his infamous July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, even though the White House corroborated key aspects of it. He accused House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff of lying about his call with Zelensky, only to be set straight once the White House released a summary of the conversation, but in fact he had it backward — the paraphrasing Trump is mad about happened during a hearing held about the call summary’s release.
Trump pushes big lies
1) "You have a fake whistleblower that wrote a report that bore no relationship to what was said"- the report was accurate
2) "I released [transcript] after they had done these fraudulent acts"- it was released before the Schiff paraphrasing he's mad about pic.twitter.com/cApFy4toar — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020
As soon as Trump wrapped up his lengthy and factually incorrect harangue about impeachment, one of his handlers started screaming at reporters to exit the event. Moments later, Trump posted an all-caps rage-tweet that simultaneously mischaracterized his phone call with Zelensky and didn’t reflect a prayerful attitude.
I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 16, 2020
Even though he never mentioned it, the map on Trump’s desk during the event alludes to his real defense of his conduct — to the winner go the spoils, and he won big in 2016 (never mind that land doesn’t vote, and that more voters supported Hillary Clinton).
It’s telling, however, that even when the truth will suffice, Trump seemingly can’t help but lie. And this lie, like many others Trump tells, is impervious to correction.
The inaccurate election map “has been a talisman [for Trump] since soon after [then-Attorney General Jeff] Sessions recused from the Russia probe,” New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after the event. “He started handing them out to people shortly before [special counsel Robert] Mueller was named; aides got the first large one to frame the day after [FBI Director James] Comey was fired.”
Sessions recused from the Russia probe nearly three years ago. Yet in all that time, nobody around Trump has bothered to get him a map that doesn’t exaggerate his popularity in a way that erases the plurality of people who didn’t support him.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-01-17--“Privacy shouldn’t be a luxury”: Advocates want Google to do more to secure cheap Android phones

If you own a smartphone , particularly one that runs Google ’ s Android operating system , you have no doubt noticed it came with a bunch of pre-installed apps that you can ’ t remove .
Some of these are necessary for the device to function ; others are not , and you may not want them but are stuck with them anyway .
These are known as bloatware .
Sometimes they aren ’ t just annoying — they can compromise your privacy by tracking your activities , including , in one famous case , by logging your keystrokes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potential source of viruses and malware that compromise the security of your phone .
That ’ s why a group of more than 50 privacy and human rights advocates recently sent an open letter to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai , calling on him to do more to defend Android users from malicious or flawed pre-installed apps .
Your phone ’ s manufacturer , vendor , and mobile carrier decide which apps come pre-installed .
That ’ s why malicious bloatware is less of a problem for iPhones : because Apple alone controls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Android is the opposite : It ’ s an open source platform that is available to device manufacturers and vendors all over the world — ranging from massive companies like Samsung to lesser-known brands like Wileyfox and Amgoo .
And that ’ s how bloatware can get out of control .
Some of these companies are reputable and carefully vet the security of their devices and pre-installed apps , while others may — intentionally or not — pre-install malware on their devices .
This malware can take several forms , including backdoors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and control over a device , and click fraud apps , which force a device to go to a website with pay-per-click ads , creating false views that the website is then paid for by the ad company .
Because the app runs in the background , a phone ’ s owner typically has no idea it ’ s going to all these websites and using their data until the surprise bill comes .
Pre-installed app vulnerabilities and exploits are a known issue ; Google ’ s own 2018 security report noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to infect devices .
This is because these apps are able to access parts of phones without needing the user ’ s permission to perform functions , as is the case for apps that are installed through the app store , and they are far more difficult ( if not impossible ) to remove entirely from a device .
While iPhones are not free from malware , they are more secure than Android devices .
They are also more expensive than some Android phones .
New iPhones range from $ 449 ( iPhone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to $ 1,449 ( a fully loaded iPhone 11 Pro , which is Apple ’ s newest model ) , with discounts for trade-ins .
Verizon Wireless , on the other hand , offers Android smartphones for as little as $ 99 for an Alcatel Avalon V — with a $ 99 credit that makes the phone essentially free .
This means that lower-income people are more likely to own Android phones .
For instance , India , considered “ lower middle income ” ( per capita annual income between $ 996 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is Android ’ s biggest market , while only 1 to 2 percent of India ’ s smartphones run Apple ’ s iOS .
The downside of lower-priced devices is that their manufacturers sometimes cut corners to produce a cheaper phone , or they ’ re only able to keep prices down through deals with app makers to pre-install their products on their devices in the first place .
That means lower-income people , in both the US and the rest of the world , are more exposed to privacy violations than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and more secure — phones .
“ When dealing with low-cost devices , we see quite a number of poor security practices , ” Christopher Weatherhead , technology lead for Privacy International , told Recode .
“ We believe that privacy shouldn ’ t be a luxury that only those who can afford the most expensive devices ( like iPhones ) can attain.
” For one Privacy International staffer , this experience is personal : In 2018 , they were traveling in the Philippines when they purchased a MyPhone-brand myA2 smartphone running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Privacy International said the phone cost $ 19 ; it currently retails for about $ 30 . )
MyPhone , a Philippine phone vendor , is listed as a Play Protect Android Certified partner , which means its devices must adhere to Android ’ s security standards and offer consumers some level of protection and oversight .
Yet the phone came with problematic MyPhone-specific apps pre-installed , including one called MyPhoneRegistration .
MyPhoneRegistration allows a phone ’ s owner to register their device , but by the time Privacy International obtained the phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive that data was no longer running .
With nothing to connect to , the phone was stuck in an endless loop , sending out sensitive personal information every five minutes in a futile quest to fulfill the app ’ s mission .
There was no way to update the app to stop it or delete the app from the phone entirely .
And because MyPhone did not encrypt the data — which included the owner ’ s name , age , gender , and location — that it repeatedly sent out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same network can read that information ( in on coffee shops or airports ’ free wifi ) .
” MyPhone confirmed to Recode that its pre-2018 myA2 phones were no longer able to access or update pre-installed apps , which means the security vulnerability remains unfixed , but said “ we remain committed to provide a secure platform to our new and upcoming devices by complying to the latest Google requirements to keep the devices secure.
” The company added that it now has a privacy policy .
This issue isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the open letter was released last week , internet security company Malwarebytes revealed that it found two types of malware pre-installed on Assurance Wireless phones , which are given to low-income Americans as part of the Federal Communications Commission ’ s Lifeline Assistance program .
( In a statement , Unimax Communications , which manufacturers the phone in question , told Recode that while it did not find any malware , it did find a “ potential vulnerability ” in one of its pre-installed apps .
No customer data was compromised and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Unimax said . )
Privacy International ’ s letter asks Google to make three changes to how pre-installed apps are managed and run on Play Protect certified devices : allow users to uninstall apps ; hold them up to the same scrutiny as apps available through the Google Play Store ; and require pre-installed apps to have an update mechanism .
For its part , Google told Recode that it has stepped up its security measures in recent years , including working with device manufacturers to scan pre-installed apps for harmful software @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it holds pre-installed apps to “ similar standards ” as Google Play Store apps .
The American Civil Liberties Union , Amnesty International , the Center for Digital Democracy , and the Electronic Frontier Foundation , among 50 others , signed Privacy International ’ s open letter .
“ Google dominates the mobile phone OS market with its Android system , ” Jeffrey Chester , executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy , told Recode .
“ This call organized by PI and supported by leading groups for Google to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a much needed wake up call for that company.
” Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

If you own a smartphone, particularly one that runs Google’s Android operating system, you have no doubt noticed it came with a bunch of pre-installed apps that you can’t remove. Some of these are necessary for the device to function; others are not, and you may not want them but are stuck with them anyway. These are known as bloatware. Sometimes they aren’t just annoying — they can compromise your privacy by tracking your activities, including, in one famous case, by logging your keystrokes and text messages. They are also a potential source of viruses and malware that compromise the security of your phone.
That’s why a group of more than 50 privacy and human rights advocates recently sent an open letter to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, calling on him to do more to defend Android users from malicious or flawed pre-installed apps.
Your phone’s manufacturer, vendor, and mobile carrier decide which apps come pre-installed. That’s why malicious bloatware is less of a problem for iPhones: because Apple alone controls what comes pre-installed on its devices. Android is the opposite: It’s an open source platform that is available to device manufacturers and vendors all over the world — ranging from massive companies like Samsung to lesser-known brands like Wileyfox and Amgoo.
And that’s how bloatware can get out of control. Some of these companies are reputable and carefully vet the security of their devices and pre-installed apps, while others may — intentionally or not — pre-install malware on their devices.
This malware can take several forms, including backdoors, which give a remote user access to and control over a device, and click fraud apps, which force a device to go to a website with pay-per-click ads, creating false views that the website is then paid for by the ad company. Because the app runs in the background, a phone’s owner typically has no idea it’s going to all these websites and using their data until the surprise bill comes.
Pre-installed app vulnerabilities and exploits are a known issue; Google’s own 2018 security report noted that bad actors have increasingly used pre-installed apps to infect devices. This is because these apps are able to access parts of phones without needing the user’s permission to perform functions, as is the case for apps that are installed through the app store, and they are far more difficult (if not impossible) to remove entirely from a device.
While iPhones are not free from malware, they are more secure than Android devices. They are also more expensive than some Android phones. New iPhones range from $449 (iPhone 8, released in September 2017) to $1,449 (a fully loaded iPhone 11 Pro, which is Apple’s newest model), with discounts for trade-ins. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, offers Android smartphones for as little as $99 for an Alcatel Avalon V — with a $99 credit that makes the phone essentially free.
This means that lower-income people are more likely to own Android phones. For instance, India, considered “lower middle income” (per capita annual income between $996 and $3,895) by the World Bank, is Android’s biggest market, while only 1 to 2 percent of India’s smartphones run Apple’s iOS. The downside of lower-priced devices is that their manufacturers sometimes cut corners to produce a cheaper phone, or they’re only able to keep prices down through deals with app makers to pre-install their products on their devices in the first place. That means lower-income people, in both the US and the rest of the world, are more exposed to privacy violations than wealthier people who can afford more expensive — and more secure — phones.
“When dealing with low-cost devices, we see quite a number of poor security practices,” Christopher Weatherhead, technology lead for Privacy International, told Recode. “We believe that privacy shouldn’t be a luxury that only those who can afford the most expensive devices (like iPhones) can attain.”
For one Privacy International staffer, this experience is personal: In 2018, they were traveling in the Philippines when they purchased a MyPhone-brand myA2 smartphone running Android’s operating system. (Privacy International said the phone cost $19; it currently retails for about $30.) MyPhone, a Philippine phone vendor, is listed as a Play Protect Android Certified partner, which means its devices must adhere to Android’s security standards and offer consumers some level of protection and oversight. Yet the phone came with problematic MyPhone-specific apps pre-installed, including one called MyPhoneRegistration.
MyPhoneRegistration allows a phone’s owner to register their device, but by the time Privacy International obtained the phone, the server that was meant to receive that data was no longer running. With nothing to connect to, the phone was stuck in an endless loop, sending out sensitive personal information every five minutes in a futile quest to fulfill the app’s mission. There was no way to update the app to stop it or delete the app from the phone entirely. And because MyPhone did not encrypt the data — which included the owner’s name, age, gender, and location — that it repeatedly sent out, Weatherhead says, “anyone on the same network can read that information (in on coffee shops or airports’ free wifi).”
MyPhone confirmed to Recode that its pre-2018 myA2 phones were no longer able to access or update pre-installed apps, which means the security vulnerability remains unfixed, but said “we remain committed to provide a secure platform to our new and upcoming devices by complying to the latest Google requirements to keep the devices secure.” The company added that it now has a privacy policy.
This issue isn’t limited to developing nations. The day before the open letter was released last week, internet security company Malwarebytes revealed that it found two types of malware pre-installed on Assurance Wireless phones, which are given to low-income Americans as part of the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline Assistance program. (In a statement, Unimax Communications, which manufacturers the phone in question, told Recode that while it did not find any malware, it did find a “potential vulnerability” in one of its pre-installed apps. No customer data was compromised and its latest security update fixes the issue, Unimax said.)
Privacy International’s letter asks Google to make three changes to how pre-installed apps are managed and run on Play Protect certified devices: allow users to uninstall apps; hold them up to the same scrutiny as apps available through the Google Play Store; and require pre-installed apps to have an update mechanism.
For its part, Google told Recode that it has stepped up its security measures in recent years, including working with device manufacturers to scan pre-installed apps for harmful software before they go to market, and that it holds pre-installed apps to “similar standards” as Google Play Store apps.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among 50 others, signed Privacy International’s open letter.
“Google dominates the mobile phone OS market with its Android system,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told Recode. “This call organized by PI and supported by leading groups for Google to act responsibly when it comes to app privacy is a much needed wake up call for that company.”
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-01-17--Why Australia’s fires are linked to floods in Africa

Australia ’ s recent fire season has been hellish , and there ’ s no end in sight .
At @ @ @ @ @ burned , 28 people have died , and an estimated 1 billion animals have been @ @ @ @ @ burns , East Africa has been grappling with record-breaking rainfall leading to catastrophic floods .
@ @ @ @ @ — and it lies in the Indian Ocean .
Watch the video above the learn @ @ @ @ @ gradient , the Indian Ocean Dipole , affects weather in East Africa and Australia .
@ @ @ @ @ make this season ’ s disastrous weather the new norm .
You can find this @ @ @ @ @ ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our @ @ @ @ @ become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Want to help ?
@ @ @ @ @ are collecting donations that could use your support : • The New South Wales Rural @ @ @ @ @ Service Foundation , and Country Fire Authority

Australia’s recent fire season has been hellish, and there’s no end in sight. At least 17.9 million acres have burned, 28 people have died, and an estimated 1 billion animals have been lost.
But while Australia burns, East Africa has been grappling with record-breaking rainfall leading to catastrophic floods. Both have a common cause — and it lies in the Indian Ocean.
Watch the video above the learn how a large oceanic temperature gradient, the Indian Ocean Dipole, affects weather in East Africa and Australia. And how climate change could make this season’s disastrous weather the new norm.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.
Want to help? Here are some organizations that are collecting donations that could use your support:
A previous version of this video had the date January 7, 2019 at 0:11. It has been corrected to January 7, 2020. The source at 0:24 has been corrected to read the Government of Western Australia. The current version also corrects an error at 2:10 and 2:29 where our voiceover mixed up East and West.


vox--2020-01-17--Wuhan pneumonia outbreak: What we know and don’t know

The mysterious , new virus that ’ s caused dozens of people to fall sick with pneumonia in China has now popped up in Japan .
The patient — a Chinese man in his 30s — was returning to Tokyo , where he lives , after visiting Wuhan , the mainland Chinese city of 19 million that ’ s currently the center of the outbreak , according to Japan ’ s Ministry of Health .
This is the third case of international spread since the outbreak was announced on December 31 .
The other two were identified in Thailand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who had traveled to Bangkok from Wuhan .
She came down with a fever on January 5 , days before Chinese officials announced their finding that the outbreak is likely caused by a new coronavirus , of the same family of viruses as SARS .
The second , also a Chinese woman , aged 74 , arrived in Thailand on January 13 , and had no relation to the first visitor who fell ill .
The big question these travelers raise — arguably the most important question about this outbreak — is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick person .
So far , a leading theory has been that the virus , currently called 2019-nCoV , spread directly from animals at a Wuhan food market , which has been linked to many of the cases in the outbreak .
If that ’ s true , and 2019-nCoV isn ’ t yet spreading from person to person , the outbreak should burn out quickly .
( Once the animal shedding the virus is identified and contained , cases should stop turning up . )
But at least two of the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials have also reported evidence of viral spread within one family : a husband who worked at the market got sick , followed by his wife , who hadn ’ t visited the market .
Together , these cases could signal that the virus indeed has the potential to spread from person to person , instead of just from an animal carrying the virus to humans , as health authorities had been suggesting .
If so , “ the scope of this outbreak expands massively , ” said Peter Daszak , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health research organization working in China .
In the worst case , the virus could already be moving more broadly in Wuhan — and maybe further .
A WHO spokesperson said that while there ’ s “ no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission , ” the precise way the virus is spreading “ has not yet been determined and human-to-human transmission is always a concern when patients have respiratory symptoms.
” With the first cases turning up outside of China , the WHO warned about the possibility of “ limited human-to-human transmission ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency committee meeting .
If such a meeting is called , a panel of independent experts would discuss whether the outbreak is dire enough to constitute a “ public health emergency of international concern , ” a rare designation the WHO gives to diseases that pose a global threat .
China is sharing information about the outbreak fast — a contrast to SARS Because health authorities are dealing with a new virus , the picture of this outbreak — and its seriousness — is shifting rapidly , and will continue to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was only declared on December 31 .
By January 9 , the state broadcaster China Central Television reported that 15 of the people who had become ill tested positive for the new virus .
By January 11 , scientists in China shared the genetic sequence of the new virus , and the WHO applauded China ’ s efforts .
“ WHO is reassured of the quality of the ongoing investigations and the response measures implemented in Wuhan , and the commitment to share information regularly , ” the agency said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SARS outbreak of 2003 , when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long .
But other aspects of the outbreak bear a startling resemblance to SARS , which also involved a then-new virus when it was discovered in 2003 .
The virus jumped from civet cats — a food delicacy in China — to humans , and went on to spread to two dozen countries .
It eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 .
For now , the current outbreak continues to center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Market in Wuhan , the capital of Hubei , one of China ’ s most populous provinces .
Health officials in Wuhan have reported that the patients with the virus so far were “ mainly business staff and purchasers ” at the Huanan South China Seafood Market , where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits .
This pointed to the possibility that the new virus had spread to humans from one of the animals there .
But the new international cases and family cluster mean something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient in Thailand , according to the WHO , “ reported a history of visiting [ other ] local markets in Wuhan ” before she fell ill on January 5 .
Sixteen people who sat near the woman on her flight have so far tested negative for the virus , and the woman is now recovering at the Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute outside Bangkok .
The man in Japan noticed a fever on January 3 and went to see a doctor when he arrived in Tokyo on January 6 .
He was hospitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discharged on January 15 because his symptoms had resolved .
Two patient deaths “ mark this virus as a significant concern ” To date , authorities in Wuhan have reported at least 41 patients with the novel coronavirus infection .
Among them , seven are severely ill , and two have been discharged from the hospital .
As of January 17 , two patients — men in their 60s with underlying health problems — have died .
The leading hypothesis is that the disease is the result of the new coronavirus , 2019-nCoV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can target the cells deep within the lungs .
“ There are tons of coronaviruses , ” said Vincent Munster , an emerging viral diseases researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
Most infect mammals , including bats .
Two of the six that are known to infect humans , SARS and MERS , can cause severe pneumonia and even death .
The rest lead to milder symptoms , like a common cold .
In the current outbreak , the main symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ X-rays , patients appear to have lesions in both lungs .
According to the Bangkok Post , the patient in Thailand had neither fever nor respiratory symptoms , and might be discharged in a few days .
The deaths “ [ mark ] this virus as a significant concern , ” said Daszak .
Researchers will need to confirm that this new virus is without a doubt the driver of the outbreak , said Marion Koopmans , who studies emerging infectious diseases as director of the virology department at Erasmus Medical Center in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out the range of illness the virus causes in the confirmed cases .
“ If [ the new virus ] is indeed the likely cause , and seeded at the market , a key question is how transmissible this is , ” Koopmans said .
Viruses that spill over from animals may not be very transmissible “ if they sit deep in the lungs and are not shed easily , ” she added .
That would mean , Munster said , “ the epidemic potential of this virus might still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japan and Thailand cases — along with the potential family spread in Wuhan — suggest the possibility for human-to-human viral transmission .
And it ’ s possible , Daszak said , that the virus was incubating in patients for a couple of weeks , and that more secondary cases — from people who were directly exposed to the animal carrying the virus — are only now going to start popping up .
Health officials would also need to find out which animal is spreading the virus to humans — the “ natural reservoir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus made the jump , and then make sure that animal is contained .
“ We don ’ t know where the virus came from , ” Daszak said .
“ We don ’ t know the geographic origin of the wildlife reservoir .
And it ’ s now known to be lethal.
” At the moment , the WHO is not recommending any measures for travelers , nor is it advising against travel or trade restrictions on China , even on the cusp of China ’ s Lunar New Year holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are expected to travel .
( A new study found the top travel destinations out of Wuhan are Asian megacities , including Bangkok , Hong Kong , Tokyo , and Taipei . )
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US has stated that “ the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is deemed to be low.
” The market that ’ s been linked to the outbreak has been closed for disinfection , and health investigators are following at least 739 close contacts of the patients , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they develop symptoms .
Officials in Wuhan say there have been no new cases there since January 3 .

The US will start screening at three airports for passengers with the mysterious, new virus originating in Wuhan, China that’s caused three deaths and nearly 200 people to fall sick with pneumonia.
On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection announced the new measure, which will begin on January 17. Travelers from Wuhan to three US airports — San Francisco (SFO), New York (JFK), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports — will be screened for symptoms, such as cough and fever.
“I expect that we’re going to see more cases, and I think it’s highly plausible that there will be at least a case in the United States,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases in a press briefing Friday.
Following the move, Wuhan’s health authorities reported a spike in illness — 136 additional cases over the weekend, as well as a third death. And already, cases have popped up in travelers from Wuhan to Japan, Thailand, and Korea — as well as two major Chinese cities, Beijing and Shenzhen.
The big question the growing caseload and these travelers raise — arguably the most important question about this outbreak — is whether the virus is spreading from person to person.
So far, a leading theory has been that the virus, called 2019-nCoV, spread directly to people from animals at a Wuhan food market, which has been linked to some of the cases in the outbreak. If that’s true, and 2019-nCoV isn’t yet spreading from person to person, the outbreak should burn out quickly. (Once the animal shedding the virus is identified and contained, cases should stop turning up.)
But evidence is piling up to suggest the virus may already be spreading among humans. Several of the travelers never visited the market. Wuhan officials have also reported evidence of viral spread within one family: a husband who worked at the market got sick, followed by his wife, who hadn’t visited the market. Just the fact that travelers with the virus are showing up in other countries hints at at least some person-to-person spread, Neil Ferguson, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at Imperial College London, told the BBC.
If that’s the case, “the scope of this outbreak expands massively,” said Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a US global health research organization working in China. In the worst case, the virus could already be moving more broadly in China — and maybe further. That risk appears to be heightened as millions start to travel this week for China’s Lunar New Year on January 25th.
At least four people have traveled with the virus outside of China
Because health authorities are dealing with a new virus, the picture of this outbreak — and its seriousness — is shifting rapidly, and will continue to do so in the coming days.
The outbreak was only declared on December 31. By January 9, the state broadcaster China Central Television reported that 15 of the people who had become ill tested positive for the new virus. By January 11, scientists in China shared the genetic sequence of the new virus, and the WHO applauded China’s efforts.
“WHO is reassured of the quality of the ongoing investigations and the response measures implemented in Wuhan, and the commitment to share information regularly,” the agency said in a statement.
This was also a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003, when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long.
But other aspects of the outbreak bear a startling resemblance to SARS, which also involved a then-new virus when it was discovered in 2003. The virus jumped from civet cats — a food delicacy in China — to humans, and went on to spread to two dozen countries. It eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000.
For now, the current outbreak has centered on the the Huanan South China Seafood Market in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, one of China’s most populous provinces. Health officials in Wuhan originally reported that the patients with the virus so far were “mainly business staff and purchasers” at the Huanan South China Seafood Market, where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits. This pointed to the possibility that the new virus had spread to humans from one of the animals there.
But the recent spike in cases, along with the growing number of travelers detected with the virus, mean something else may be going on.
On Monday, South Korea reported its first case of the virus — and the fourth example of international spread — in a 35-year-old woman who traveled from Wuhan. She never visited markets or had contact with animals, WHO reported.
Before that, a Chinese man in his 30s was diagnosed with the virus upon returning to Tokyo, where he lives. He’d also visited Wuhan, the mainland Chinese city of 19 million that’s currently the center of the outbreak, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health.
The other two cases were identified in Thailand. The first involved a 61-year-old Chinese woman, who had traveled to Bangkok from Wuhan. She came down with a fever on January 5, days before Chinese officials announced their finding that the outbreak is likely caused by a new coronavirus, of the same family of viruses as SARS. The second, also a Chinese woman, aged 74, arrived in Thailand on January 13, and had no relation to the first visitor who fell ill.
These developments caused the WHO to acknowledge on January 18th that “there is evidence of limited human-to-human transmission.”
Three patient deaths mark this virus “a significant concern”
As of January 19, authorities in China have reported 198 patients with the coronavirus infection. Among them, 170 are still in the hospital, 126 have mild illness, and 44 are in severe or critical condition. Three patients have died. All cases involve adults aged 25 to 89, and about half are male.
The leading hypothesis is that the disease is the result of the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system and can target the cells deep within the lungs. “There are tons of coronaviruses,” said Vincent Munster, an emerging viral diseases researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Most infect mammals, including bats. Two of the six that are known to infect humans, SARS and MERS, can cause severe pneumonia and even death. The rest lead to milder symptoms, like a common cold.
In the current outbreak, the main symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing, the WHO said. In chest X-rays, patients appear to have lesions in both lungs. But a preliminary genetic analysis of the 2019-nCoV virus, by Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, found it’s closely related to SARS. It, along with the three deaths, “marks this virus as a significant concern,” said Daszak.
Big questions remain
Researchers will need to confirm that this new virus is without a doubt the driver of the outbreak, said Marion Koopmans, who studies emerging infectious diseases as director of the virology department at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam. They’ll then need to figure out the full spectrum of illness the virus causes in the confirmed cases.
“If [the new virus] is indeed the likely cause, and seeded at the market, a key question is how transmissible this is,” Koopmans said. Viruses that spill over from animals may not be very transmissible “if they sit deep in the lungs and are not shed easily,” she added. That would mean, Munster said, “the epidemic potential of this virus might still be limited.”
But, again, the Japan, Thailand, and Korea cases — along with the potential family spread in Wuhan — suggest the possibility for human-to-human viral transmission.
Health officials would also need to find out which animal is spreading the virus to humans — the “natural reservoir” of the virus — and how the virus made the jump, and then make sure that animal is contained.
“We don’t know where the virus came from,” Daszak said. “We don’t know the geographic origin of the wildlife reservoir. And it’s now known to be lethal.”
At the moment, the WHO is not recommending any measures for travelers, nor is it advising against travel or trade restrictions on China, even on the cusp of China’s Lunar New Year holiday, during which hundreds of millions of people are expected to travel. (A new study found the top travel destinations out of Wuhan are Asian megacities, including Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei.)
The CDC in the US has stated that “the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is deemed to be low.” They’ve said the new airport screening is a precautionary measure. The market that’s been linked to the outbreak has been closed for disinfection, and health investigators are have tracked at least 800 close contacts of the patients.
With the first cases turning up outside of China, the WHO said it was considering organizing an emergency committee meeting. If such a meeting is called, a panel of independent experts would discuss whether the outbreak is dire enough to constitute a “public health emergency of international concern,” a rare designation the WHO gives to diseases that pose a global threat.