ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

White House Aide Vindman: From Ukrainian Immigrant to Key Witness Against Trump

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman has been an infantry officer in multiple overseas tours, and received a Purple Heart when he was wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb. He’s served in U.S. embassies in Kyiv and Moscow, and worked on Russian politico-military affairs at the Pentagon.

But it is his most recent tour as the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert at the White House that has placed him squarely in the national spotlight, as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives pushes ahead with its impeachment inquiry aimed at President Donald Trump.

Vindman listened in July 25 as Trump talked with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and asked him for “a favor” — initiate investigations of one of Trump’s top 2020 Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, who until earlier this year was on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Vindman told impeachment investigators he was so troubled by Trump’s request to Zelenskiy to intervene in the U.S. political scene that he reported the president’s comments to his superiors.

Now 44, Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3-years-old when they and their family fled Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, for the United States. His brother is also an Army lieutenant colonel and a lawyer handling ethics issues for the National Security Council.

Vindman told House investigators that “upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country.”

“For many years,” Vindman said, “life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream. I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

He said he has served more than 20 years as a U.S. military officer and diplomat “in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.”

Trump described Vindman as a “Never Trumper” and questioned why he was being allowed to testify in the impeachment hearing.

…

Army Officer Says He Raised Concerns About Trump and Ukraine

A military officer at the National Security Council twice raised concerns over the Trump administration’s push to have Ukraine investigate Democrats and Joe Biden, according to testimony the official is to deliver Tuesday in the House impeachment inquiry.

Alexander Vindman, an Army lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq and, later, as a diplomat, is prepared to tell House investigators that he listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with new Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.

“I was concerned by the call,” Vindman will say, according to prepared testimony obtained Monday night by The Associated Press. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”

Vindman is the first White House official who listened in on that call to testify as the impeachment inquiry reaches deeper into the Trump administration and Democrats prepare for the next, public phase of the probe. He’s also the first current White House official to appear before the impeachment panels.

The inquiry is looking into Trump’s call, in which he asked Zelenskiy for a “favor” — to investigate Democrats — that Democrats say was a quid pro quo that could be an impeachable offense.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Full House to Vote on Trump Impeachment Inquiry

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to ‘eliminate any doubts’ about the process

The 20-year military officer will testify that he first reported his concerns after an earlier meeting July 10 in which U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stressed the importance of having Ukraine investigate the 2016 election as well as Burisma, a company linked to the family of Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

Vindman says he told Sondland that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.”

That account differs from Sondland’s, a wealthy businessman who donated $1 million to Trump inauguration and testified before the impeachment investigators that no one from the NSC “ever expressed any concerns.” He also testified that he did not realize any connection between Biden and Burisma.

For the call between Trump and Zelenskiy, Vindman said he listened in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and Vice President Mike Pence’s office and was concerned. He said he again reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.

He wrote, “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”

Vindman, who arrived in the United States as a 3-year-old from the former Soviet Union, served in various military and diplomatic posts before joining the NSC. He was the director for European affairs and a Ukraine expert under Fiona Hill, a former official who testified earlier in the impeachment probe. Hill worked for former national security adviser John Bolton.

Vindman will be a key witness. He attended Zelenskiy’s inauguration with a delegation led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and he and Hill were both part of a Ukraine briefing with Sondland that others have testified irritated Bolton at the White House.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Ex-White House Aide Balks at Impeachment Inquiry Testimony

National security official Charles Kupperman has asked a court to decide whether he must honor a congressional subpoena

Vindman will testify that he is not the whistleblower, the still unnamed government official who filed the initial complaint over Trump’s conversation with the Ukraine president that sparked the House impeachment inquiry. He will say he does not know who the whistleblower is.

“I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics,” wrote Vindman, who was wounded in Iraq and awarded a Purple Heart.

“For over twenty years as an active duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations,” he wrote.

The testimony comes a day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House will vote on a resolution to affirm the impeachment investigation, set rules for public hearings and outline the potential process for writing articles of impeachment against Trump. The vote is expected Thursday.

It would be the first formal House vote on the impeachment inquiry and aims to nullify complaints from Trump and his allies that the process is illegitimate, unfair and lacking due process.

Democrats insisted they weren’t yielding to Republican pressure. Pelosi dismissed the Republican argument that impeachment can’t begin without formal approval from the House and brushed off their complaints about the closed-door process.

“I do not care. I do not care. This is a false thing with them,” Pelosi said. “Understand, it has nothing to do with them. It has to do with how we proceed.”

Pelosi’s announcement Monday came just hours after a former White House national security official defied a House subpoena for closed-door testimony, escalating the standoff between Congress and the White House over who will testify.

Charles Kupperman, who was a deputy to Bolton, failed to show up for the scheduled closed-door deposition after filing a lawsuit asking a federal court in Washington to rule on whether he was legally required to appear.

Democrats have indicated they are likely to use no-show witnesses to write an article of impeachment against Trump for obstruction of justice, rather than launching potentially lengthy court battles to obtain testimony.

…

Envoy for North Korea Expected to Get No. 2 State Dept. Job

The U.S. special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, is expected to be nominated as early as this week to be second-in-command at the State Department, officials said Monday.

Two Trump administration officials and a congressional aide familiar with the selection process said the White House is expected to nominate Biegun to be the next deputy secretary of state in the coming days. The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Biegun would replace John Sullivan, who has been nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Russia. Both positions require Senate confirmation.

Biegun has had a prominent role in the delicate negotiations that led to historic meetings between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

A former Ford Motor Co. executive who served in previous Republican administrations and has advised GOP lawmakers, Biegun has led as yet unsuccessful negotiations to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons since being appointed to his current post in August 2018. He is expected to keep the North Korea portfolio if he is confirmed to the new post, the officials said.

His nomination has been expected since mid-September, but its timing has been unclear amid turmoil in the State Department over the House impeachment inquiry into the administration’s policy toward Ukraine.

Sullivan was nominated to be envoy to Moscow in September although his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was just set for Wednesday, making Biegun’s nomination to fill the soon-to-be vacant No. 2 spot at the State Department more urgent.

Sullivan’s confirmation hearing is likely to be dominated by questions from committee Democrats about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his role in Ukraine policy.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified to impeachment investigators earlier the month that Sullivan was the official who informed her that she had lost Trump’s confidence and was being recalled early from Kyiv. Democrats are expected to use Wednesday’s confirmation hearing to press Sullivan on the extent of his involvement in Ukraine and why the department bowed to a campaign to oust Yovanovitch spearheaded by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

…

North Carolina’s Congressional Map is Illegal Republican Gerrymander, Court Rules

A North Carolina court on Monday temporarily blocked the state from using its congressional map in next year’s elections and strongly suggested it would eventually rule the districts were illegally gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

The decision was a victory for Democrats, who have struggled to gain a foothold in both the state legislature and North Carolina’s 13 U.S. congressional districts, in part because of how Republicans drew the electoral lines.

The ruling seems likely to ensure that the state’s 2020 congressional elections will take place under a new map, dealing a blow to Republicans’ hopes of recapturing the U.S. House of Representatives after Democrats swept to power in that chamber last year.

Republicans hold 10 of the state’s 13 U.S. House seats, despite a nearly even split between Democratic and Republican votes in the popular count.

In an 18-page ruling, the judges said the voters who brought the lawsuit had shown a “substantial likelihood” of succeeding if the case were to reach trial.

The three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court that issued the decision is the same group that struck down the state’s legislative map in September, finding that it violated the state constitution’s free elections, equal protection and free speech clauses.

A similar challenge failed at the U.S. Supreme Court in June, when the court ruled federal judges had no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymandering, the act of drawing electoral lines to benefit one party over another.

But the Supreme Court’s decision explicitly said that state courts may consider the issue under state law. Numerous state constitutions, like that of North Carolina, contain language that goes further than the U.S. Constitution in governing the way elections are held.

“With judges deciding behind closed doors how many members of Congress from each party is acceptable, judicial elections have become the most consequential in America,” Phil Berger, the Republican leader of the state Senate, said in a statement.

Last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the state’s U.S. congressional lines. The new map was credited with helping Democrats split the state’s 18 congressional seats in 2018 after years of Republican dominance.

Both North Carolina gerrymandering challenges were backed by the National Redistricting Foundation, the litigation arm of a Democratic group founded by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to help break Republican control of the redistricting process in states across the country.

“For nearly a decade, Republicans have forced the people of North Carolina to vote in districts that were manipulated for their own partisan advantage,” Holder said in a statement. “Now — finally — the era of Republican gerrymandering in the state is coming to an end.”

…

In Chicago, Trump Calls the City an Embarrassment to the US

President Donald Trump used a conference of police chiefs on Monday to slam the host city as “embarrassing to us as a nation” under the leadership of its top cop, who skipped the event over disagreements with Trump’s immigration policies.

Trump has frequently criticized Chicago for its crime problems and status as a sanctuary city, one of scores of cities around the country that refuse to work with federal authorities to round up people who are living in the U.S. illegally.

“It’s embarrassing to us as a nation,” Trump said. “All over the world they’re talking about Chicago. Afghanistan is a safe place by comparison.”

Trump also lashed out at Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who angered Chicago’s police by skipping Trump’s first appearance in the city as president.

“More than anyone else he should be here, because maybe he could maybe learn something,” Trump said, claiming Johnson puts the needs of illegal immigrants above the needs of the law-abiding residents of Chicago.

“Those are his values and frankly those values to me are a disgrace,” Trump said, vowing to never to give priority to the needs of illegal immigrants. “I want Eddie Johnson to change his values and to change them fast.”

Chicago’s police department had no immediate comment on Trump’s remarks.

Johnson’s decision to skip Trump’s address angered the city’s chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, which said in a Facebook post that “such a gesture would be an insult to both President Trump and the office of the presidency itself and would be a mark of disgrace upon the city throughout the entire nation, including Mayor Lori Lightfoot.” Lightfoot has also refused to meet with Trump while he is in her city.

Then FOP Lodge 7, which represents rank-and-file Chicago police officers, announced that it had cast a vote of no confidence in Johnson.

The vote might please Trump, who likes to tell officers not to treat crime suspects so gently and was cheered at last year’s gathering of the same police chiefs’ organization in Orlando, Florida, when he advocated the use of the “stop and frisk” policing tactic that has been deemed unconstitutional.

The president’s visit also comes as more than 25,000 members of the Chicago Teachers Union have been on strike since Oct. 17.

At the conference, Trump signed an executive order creating a presidential commission on law enforcement to study issues like substance abuse, homelessness and mental illness, the White House said. The order calls for establishing a framework for better training, recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers.

The president also announced that the Justice Department will begin a stronger crackdown on violent crime in the United States, targeting gang members and drug traffickers in high-crime areas.

“Let’s call it the surge,” Trump said.

Johnson, meanwhile, is under internal investigation after he was found sleeping in a city-owned vehicle earlier this month. Lightfoot said the superintendent, who called for the investigation, told her he had “a couple of drinks with dinner” before he fell asleep at a stop sign while driving home. Johnson blamed the episode on a change in his blood pressure medication.

While in Chicago, Trump is scheduled to headline a campaign luncheon that’s set to raise approximately $4 million for a joint fundraising committee benefiting Trump’s reelection effort and the Republican National Committee, according to the GOP.

Trump last visited Chicago in 2016 as a presidential candidate for what supposed to be a campaign rally on the campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago. But after fights broke out between supporters and protesters awaiting his arrival at the arena, Trump canceled the event before he took the stage.

Trump said then that he had consulted with Chicago police before making the decision. But the city’s top cop at the time, interim Superintendent John Escalante, disputed Trump’s characterization.

…

Growing Uncertainty Looms Over Democrats’ 2020 Primary

Look no further than Pearl City Station, a plain brick building set along the banks of the Mississippi River, to understand the growing sense of uncertainty seeping into the Democratic Party’s 2020 primary contest.

Inside, 200 Iowa Democrats recently sized up Joe Biden, the former vice president and one of their party’s leading presidential candidates. He engenders respect and admiration but generates little excitement.

One elderly man sitting in the back of the room fell asleep as the former vice president shared his vision for America’s future in unusually hushed tones for nearly 45 minutes without taking questions.

Afterward, David Metz, a member of the county Democratic committee, said that despite a campaign season that has already featured millions of dollars spent, countless miles logged and four debates staged, there is a deepening feeling of indecision among local voters who now have less than 100 days to finalize their 2020 pick.

“Nobody knows what to do,” Metz said. “They’re all afraid. There’s a lot of anxiety.”

In almost every campaign cycle, there comes a phase of indifference, fear and difficult questions. But in the 2020 cycle, Democratic officials hoped that the fervent desire to beat Trump would eventually lead to an enthusiastic embrace of its presidential field.

The lack of enthusiasm for Biden’s candidacy underscores a broader trend emerging in the states that matter most in the Democratic Party’s high-stakes presidential nomination fight: Primary voters appear to be getting less certain of their choice as Election Day approaches.

The historically large field, while in part of measure of the desire to oust the incumbent president, has also made it harder for the top contenders to forge a more focused contest. Nine Democrats so far have qualified for the party’s November debate and a dozen more are still fighting for attention. Among the top tier, the liabilities of Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, in particular, are becoming more visible as Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucuses approach.

Major donors and party leaders across the country have publicly and privately raised concerns about the direction of the primary election recently as well. But interviews with dozens of primary voters across Iowa and New Hampshire in recent days reveal a pervasive feeling of unease.

Polling suggests that the number of undecided voters in Iowa has jumped significantly in recent weeks. And even among those who have a favorite candidate, most say they could change their mind before voting begins.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire progressive activist, is among those lower-tier candidates aggressively fighting to capitalize on the uncertainty. He’s vowed to spend at least $100 million of his own money in the campaign, although he acknowledged in a weekend interview that his investment could shift up or down depending on conditions on the ground.

“We’re three months out from Iowa and we thought that there would be a lot of indecision, but it’s definitely higher than we would have expected. No question,” Steyer said. “That is something that has to be true if I’m going to win. And it is true.”

Just ask the voters.

In New Hampshire, Greg Bruss, a 68-year-old retired teacher, says he’s usually volunteering for a candidate by this time in the primary cycle. That’s not the case this year as he mulls voting for either Sanders or Warren.

“The times are that much more dire,” Bruss said. “I don’t want to get it wrong.”

Former New Hampshire state Sen. Bette Lasky says she’s impressed with the Democratic field, but she’s remained on the sidelines as well, even after hosting house parties for several candidates.

“Generally, I don’t have trouble making up my mind,” she said. “But (it’s) difficult for me to get out there behind any one candidate.”

Back in Iowa, 43-year-old Waterloo school employee Danielle Borglum said she expected to finalize her decision after watching the last debate, but she couldn’t do it.

“I didn’t realize the amount of people that we had as candidates!” Borglum said. “So many people have a plan. Is anyone really right?”

Bev Alderson, a 59-year-old retired teacher from Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, said that she has “a couple of frontrunners, but they’re not etched in stone.”

“There’s too much to be said yet. There’s too many things that are happening and going on, it’s just too early,” she said.

While significant, history suggests that the uncertainty currently defining the 2020 primary season is not totally unique.

Before Iowa’s 2004 contest, for example, former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean all led the polls at times before then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry made a late surge to win.

And three months before Iowa’s 2008 Democratic caucuses, most polls had Hillary Clinton with a significant lead over John Edwards and a little-known Illinois senator named Barack Obama. Obama, of course, went on to win the Iowa caucuses by almost 8 points and Clinton finished third.

That history, backed by polling that shows most voters could still change their minds, is convincing low-polling underdog candidates to keep fighting.

“One of the things I’ve learned by listening to the people of Iowa is they tend to make up their minds fairly close to caucus night,” former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke told reporters during a forum in Des Moines last week.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who hasn’t topped 3% in any Iowa poll since April, said he was encouraged by a crowd of 200 that showed up to see him speak the night before. He said he’s getting a clear message from voters who say, ”‘I’m excited about you — you’re first on my list, or you’ve moved up from four to two,’ which I’m learning is really important in the Iowa caucuses.”

And former Housing Secretary Julian Castro warned supporters last week that he’d need to raise $800,000 by the end of the month to keep his campaign alive. But he, too, seized on the large number of undecideds.

The primary campaign, Castro said, is “more unstable than it’s ever been.”

“You have a lot of people in these polls that, even though they express a preference for one candidate or another, are saying that they can still change their mind,” he said. He added: “Three months is probably 10 lifetimes in politics.”

Jennifer Konfrst, a first-term Iowa state senator, agrees.

She’s supporting Booker, but she says many of her friends have already changed their minds about which candidate they like best.

“So many of my friends have three top choices — and they’re not the same three,” she said. “Anybody who says they know what’s going to happen is lying.”

…

Ex-White House Aide Balks at Impeachment Inquiry Testimony

A former White House national security aide balked Monday at testifying in the ongoing Democratic-led impeachment inquiry targeting President Donald Trump.

Charles Kupperman, who served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, had been subpoenaed by Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives to answer questions behind closed doors about any knowledge he has about how Trump pressured Ukraine to open investigations to help him politically. Kupperman listened in on the July 25 call in which Trump pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for “a favor” – to investigate any involvement the country had in the effort to defeat him in the 2016 election and to investigate one of Trump’s chief Democratic rivals in the 2020 election, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden’s lucrative job as a one-time board member for Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company.

The call, which Trump has described as “perfect,” is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

How the impeachment inquiry affects American politics

How the ongoing impeachment inquiry may affect American politics as President Trump continues attacking the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry. Also, reports indicate Turkish forces and their allies have attacked Syrian government troops in the northeast. Plus, how the ongoing protests in Hong Kong are affecting its immigrant population.

When the White House ordered Kupperman to ignore the House subpoena, he filed a lawsuit Friday asking a judge to decide whose demand he should honor – the congressional subpoena or the White House order that he not testify. His lawyer said he would comply with the subpoena if the court rules in favor of Congress.

House Democrats sent Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, a letter over the weekend contending that the lawsuit lacked merit and had been coordinated with the White House. Cooper said the suit had not been “even discussed” with the White House.

“It would not be appropriate for a private citizen, like Dr. Kupperman, to unilaterally resolve this momentous constitutional dispute between the two political branches of our government,” Cooper, who is also representing Bolton, responded to the Democrats.

Three House committee chairs leading the impeachment inquiry – Adam Schiff of the Intelligence panel, Eliot Engel of Foreign Affairs and Carolyn Maloney of Oversight – called the lawsuit “an obvious and desperate tactic by the president to delay and obstruct the lawful constitutional functions of Congress and conceal evidence about his conduct from the impeachment inquiry.”

When Kupperman failed to appear Monday, Schiff derided White House efforts to block his testimony and said it was another example of Trump’s obstruction of justice in the impeachment probe, one possible linchpin in the Democrats’ effort to write articles of impeachment against the Republican president.

Democrats are planning to hold public impeachment hearings, possibly starting in November. Even if the Democratic-controlled House votes for Trump’s impeachment, his conviction by the Republican-majority Senate and removal from office remains unlikely.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

VOA Explains: Executive Power and Impeachment

Impeachment critics say Constitution gives the president nearly unrestrained power over foreign policy

Trump, as left the White House for a trip to Chicago, assailed the impeachment investigation.

“We had a very good conversation with the Ukrainian president,” Trump said. “The conversation was perfect. They don’t ever talk about the conversation. It started with the whistleblower, and now they don’t want the whistleblower. Then they had a second whistleblower; now they don’t want the second whistleblower. The reason is that when the whistleblower – when they saw what the whistleblower wrote, and then when I released the conversation, which bore no relationship to what the whistleblower saw, they said their case was out the window. And I think it’s a disgrace.”

While the identity of the whistleblower that touched off the impeachment probe has not been disclosed and he may not testify before the impeachment panel, his account of Trump pressuring Zelenskiy has largely been corroborated by other witnesses, despite what Trump claims.

Trump described Zelenskiy – although he called him a Russian – as “a good man” who had said, “There was no anything. There was no pressure put on him. No anything.”

Government agencies controlled by the Trump administration have rejected Democratic lawmakers’ efforts to subpoena numerous documents related to the impeachment inquiry. But several government diplomatic and national security officials, including some still on the government payroll, have defied White House efforts to block their testimony.

Last week, William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators that release of $391 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine was directly linked to the eastern European country’s willingness to open the U.S.-related political investigations Trump wanted.

Both Bidens have denied any wrongdoing, while Trump has denied there was a quid pro quo – the military assistance in exchange for the Ukraine investigations.

After a delay, he released the aid to Kyiv for its efforts to fight Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

…

Biden: Kushner has no ‘Credentials’ for White House Post

Joe Biden called it “improper” for President Donald Trump for having his daughter and son-in-law hold positions in the White House, suggesting in a CBS interview Sunday that Jared Kushner is not qualified to weigh in on the complex affairs assigned by his father-in-law.

That assessment, which the Democratic presidential hopeful offered in a wide-ranging “60 Minutes” interview, ratchets up the rhetoric between Trump and Biden over each other’s adult children and family business affairs.

Biden told CBS that he doesn’t like “going after” politicians’ children, but he said none of his children would hold White House posts, even as he continued to defend his son, Hunter, against Trump’s charges that the Biden’s are corrupt because of the younger Biden’s international business affairs while his father was vice president.

“You should make it clear to the American public that everything you’re doing is for them,” Biden said, according to a CBS transcript, when he was asked about Ivanka Trump and Kushner, her husband, in White House posts with significant policy portfolios.

“Their actions speak for themselves,” Biden said of the Trump family. “I can just tell you this, that if I’m president get elected president my children are not gonna have offices in the White House. My children are not gonna sit in on Cabinet meetings.”

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Trump: White House Chief of Staff to Decide Fate of Kushner Security Clearance

It will be up to the White House chief of staff to decide whether the U.S.

Asked specifically whether he thinks Kushner should be tasked with negotiating Middle East peace agreements, Biden laughed. “No, I don’t,” he said. “What credentials does he bring to that?”

Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine and China remains an emphasis of Trump’s broadsides against Biden, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The younger Biden took a post on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm after his father became the Obama administration’s point man on U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Trump’s focus on finding information about the Biden’s Ukraine connections is now at the heart of a House impeachment inquiry against the president. Ukrainian investigators have found no legal wrongdoing by either Biden.

Noting that, the former vice president blasted social media giant Facebook for allowing the Trump campaign to distribute online ads framing the Bidens as corrupt.

“You know, I’m glad they brought the Russians down,” Biden said, noting Facebook’s recent decision to shut down accounts that were distributing misinformation, including about Biden. But, the former vice president asked, “Why don’t you bring down the lies that Trump is telling and everybody knows are lies?”

Hunter Biden in a recent interview said the only thing his father said to him at the time he took the post at Burisma was, “I hope you know what you’re doing.”

The elder Biden told CBS he never got into any details over the firm, which had been the focus on Ukrainian corruption inquiries.

“What I meant by that is I hope you’ve thought this through. I hope you know exactly what you’re doing here,” the elder Biden said. “That’s all I meant. Nothing more than that because I’ve never discussed my business or their business, my sons’ or daughter’s. And I’ve never discussed them because they know where I have to do my job and that’s it and they have to make their own judgments.”

And turning the issue back on the president, Biden repeated a line he’s started using on the campaign trail, urging Trump to release his tax returns. “Mr. President … let’s see how straight you are, okay old buddy?” Biden said. “I put out 21 years of mine. You wanna deal with corruption? Start to act like it. Release your tax returns or shut up.”

Trump’s attacks have not displaced Biden as a duel Democratic front-runner alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren. But it has nonetheless raised new questions about Biden’s argument that he’d be the best Democrat to take on the Republican president in a general election. And the Biden attack ads Trump and Republicans have financed in early nominating states, combined with Biden’s own lagging fundraising, have led some of his wealthy supporters to openly discuss the possibility of launching an independent political action committee.

Biden’s CBS interview was taped before his recent decision to reverse his previous opposition to such a Super PAC, a move that Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders have indirectly criticized. Biden did address his campaign’s cash balance being dwarfed by Warren and Sanders, saying he’s “not worried” about raising enough money.

As to just how he can withstand Sanders’ and Warren’s grassroots fundraising juggernauts, he replied, “I just flat beat them.”

…

Trump Cloaked Baghdadi Raid in Secrecy for Fear of Leaks

President Donald Trump said Sunday he cloaked the raid to kill Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in secrecy, telling only his closest advisers, two Republican lawmakers and no opposition Democrats in advance, for fear of leaks about the operation.

Trump told reporters at the White House that Russia was given a heads-up that a mission was underway but not the details.

The U.S. leader said he informed Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a key political ally in Congress, Senator Lindsey Graham, but no others. He did not inform such key Democrats as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence panel who also is leading the ongoing impeachment inquiry against Trump, who normally would be informed of such an important U.S. military operation..

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

US Military Acted Quickly on Intel to Capture or Kill Baghdadi

A US official told VOA the operation was staged from a base in Iraq

The White House released a photo of Trump watching the raid unfold alongside Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and Marcus Evans, deputy director for special operations on the Joint Staff.

Trump said his view of the raid from the White House Situation Room “was as though you were watching a movie.”

“We notified some, others are being notified now as I speak,” Trump said. “We were going to notify them last night but we decided not to do that because Washington leaks like nothing I’ve ever seen before. There is no country in the world that leaks like we do. Washington is a leaking machine.”

World Safer Place with Death of al-Baghdadi video player.

Asked if he had called Pelosi, another Trump critic, ahead of time, Trump said, “I did not do that,” adding he “wanted to make sure” the mission was kept “secret.”

“I don’t want to have men or women lost,” he said. “I don’t want to have people lost.”

Pelosi praised the raid, saying it was “significant, but the death of this ISIS leader does not mean the death of ISIS.”

“The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top congressional leadership were notified of in advance, and on the administration’s overall strategy in the region,” Pelosi said. “Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”

Schiff said while he was not informed ahead of time, “this is a great day, a ruthless killer has been brought to justice.”

…

AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s Exaggerations on Predicting bin Laden

President Donald Trump falsely asserted that he predicted Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in a news conference Sunday aimed at showcasing his administration’s accomplishments in stemming the terrorist threat abroad.

A look at the president’s claims at the briefing, where he announced the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State group:

TRUMP: “I’m writing a book … About a year before the World Trade Center came down, the book came out. I was talking about Osama bin Laden. I said, ‘You have to kill him. You have to take him out.’ Nobody listened to me.” Trump added that people said to him, ”‘You predicted that Osama Bin Laden had to be killed, before he knocked down the World Trade Center.’ It’s true.”

THE FACTS: It’s not true.

His 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” makes a passing mention of bin Laden but did no more than point to the al-Qaida leader as one of many threats to U.S. security. Nor does he say in the book that bin Laden should have be killed.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

US Military Acted Quickly on Intel to Capture or Kill Baghdadi

A US official told VOA the operation was staged from a base in Iraq

As part of his criticism of what he considered Bill Clinton’s haphazard approach to U.S. security as president, Trump wrote: “One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin Laden is public enemy Number One, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

The book did not call for further U.S. action against bin Laden or al-Qaida to follow up on attacks Clinton ordered in 1998 in Afghanistan and Sudan after al-Qaida bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The U.S. attacks were meant to disrupt bin Laden’s network and destroy some of al-Qaida’s infrastructure, such as a factory in Sudan associated with the production of a nerve gas ingredient. They “missed” in the sense that bin Laden was not killed in them, and al-Qaida was able to pull off 9/11 three years later.

In passages on terrorism, Trump’s book does correctly predict that the U.S. was at risk of a terrorist attack that would make the 1993 World Trade Center bombing pale by comparison. That was a widespread concern at the time, as Trump suggested in stating “no sensible analyst rejects this possibility.”

Still, Trump did not explicitly tie that threat to al-Qaida and thought an attack might come through a miniaturized weapon of mass destruction, like a nuclear device in a suitcase or anthrax.

TRUMP: “Nobody ever heard of Osama bin Laden until really the World Trade Center.”

THE FACTS: That’s incorrect. Bin Laden was well known by the CIA, other national security operations, experts and the public long before 9/11, with the CIA having a unit entirely dedicated to bin Laden going back to the mid-1990s. The debate at the time was over whether Clinton and successor President George W. Bush could have done more against al-Qaida to prevent the 2001 attacks.

…

In South Carolina, Democrats Accuse Trump of Sowing Racism

Democratic presidential candidates in South Carolina Saturday accused U.S. President Donald Trump of stoking racism as they vied for the state’s black vote in its strategically important early primary.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and five other Democrats participated in a forum at historically black Benedict College a day after Trump was presented an award there for his work on criminal justice, sparking outrage among candidates and temporarily prompting Senator Kamala Harris to pull out.

Harris, a former district attorney and state attorney general in California, spoke at the event Saturday after the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center, which gave Trump the award, was removed as a sponsor, according to her campaign.

A spokeswoman for that nonprofit group, which continued to be involved in organizing the event throughout the day, did not respond to a request for comment.

“I said I would not come because I just couldn’t believe that Donald Trump would be given an award as it relates to criminal justice reform,” Harris told the audience.

“Let’s be clear: This is somebody who has disrespected the voices that have been present for decades about the need for reform,” she said, criticizing the president for describing an impeachment inquiry against him as a “lynching,” a form of vigilante killing historically associated with white supremacists.

Showcase for Democrats

The event is an important showcase for Democrats ahead of South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary, the party’s fourth state-nominating contest. Six in 10 Democratic voters in the state are black and Biden has a strong early lead in local political polls.

In receiving the award Friday, Trump extolled his record on race and criminal justice before a largely handpicked and appreciative audience. The award recognized Trump last year signing bipartisan legislation including easing harsh minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Biden told the crowd on Saturday that “I don’t quite understand” why Trump would get the award. “It’s not just his words that have given rise to hate,” he said. “His actions — his actions have failed the African American community, and all communities.”

Trump hopes his support for a sweeping criminal justice reform law will help him pick up votes among African Americans next year after only winning 8% of the black vote in 2016. The president easily won South Carolina, where Republican voters outnumber Democrats 2-to-1, in 2016.

On Twitter, the president shot back at Harris, calling her a “badly failing presidential candidate” and said low unemployment and new criminal justice reforms achieved during his administration are “more than Kamala will EVER be able to do for African Americans!”

A spokeswoman for Trump’s presidential campaign, Sarah Matthews, added that “only people with desperately failing campaigns try to make this kind of racist nonsense against the President and Republicans work.”

Biden and Warren

Ten Democrats seeking the presidential nomination are speaking at events in South Carolina this weekend and presenting plans on legalizing marijuana, ending the death penalty and eliminating sentencing disparities for offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine, which have disproportionately affected black people.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is scheduled to speak on the final day of the criminal justice event Sunday along with two other Democrats.

In South Carolina, Democrats are working to chip away at a Biden’s early advantage. Bolstered by the eight years he served as vice president to Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, Biden has deep connections with black politicians and clergy.

Biden leads his closest rival in South Carolina, Warren, by nearly 20 percentage points, according to a RealClearPolitics average of recent polls. The state may end up being crucial for the former vice president as a last line of defense if he continues to lose ground to rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire.

…

Despite Trade Uncertainty, Many US Farmers to Back Trump in 2020

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPP, the United States signed with 11 other countries in 2016 would have given American farmers more places to market their crops and reduced tariffs on U.S. goods.

The United States failed to ratify the pact in the waning months of the Obama administration, and Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency pledging to withdraw from the accord, arguing it would cost U.S. manufacturing jobs. Trump kept his promise soon after taking office.

Kirkwood, Illinois, farmer Wendell Shauman, who has extensively traveled to China and other parts of the world where U.S. crops are marketed, supported Trump in 2016 — despite wanting the TPP agreement.

“Any time you back out on a trade deal, that’s not a precedent I like to see set,” Shauman told VOA in an interview in January 2017.

Trade policies

Under President Trump, the United States not only withdrew from the TPP, it also dismantled the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA.

A replacement — the United States, Mexico Canada Trade Agreement, or USMCA — is under review in the U.S. Congress. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to wage a trade war with one of its biggest crop buyers, China, which imposed tariffs on U.S. corn and soybeans in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum.

Today, as Shauman heads to his cornfields to harvest much later than usual thanks to extremely wet weather during the planting season, he contemplates how current trade policy might drain his profits. But he still supports President Trump.

“From what I hear on the other side, I’d be happy to support what he’s doing versus what they are proposing,” Shauman told VOA during a break in harvesting his corn. Much of his ire is directed at the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Harry Truman talked about the do-nothing Congress. Well, we’ve got another do-nothing Congress. Anything Trump wants to do, they are against,” Shauman said.

Success on the international trade front is a top issue for U.S. farmers, and many want Congress to pass the USMCA soon.

This segment of the American landscape largely supported President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, but continues to face difficult economic conditions amid increased costs to operate farms and decreasing profits for their crops.

Fearing a Democratic president

While an uncertain trade environment lingers ahead of casting ballots in 2020, Shauman also worries a Democratic president may impose restrictive environmental regulations to the detriment of his farm operations.

He’s not alone.

“I was excited to see a Republican take back the White House,” Elkhart, Illinois, pork farmer Thomas Titus told VOA. “I love the stance that we are taking.”

So does Jim Raben, who farms corn and soybeans in Ridgeway, a town in southern Illinois. “I think he’s doing what is right,” he told VOA at the 2019 Farm Progress Show in Decatur, Illinois.

“I think the majority of our people are by far supportive of the president,” says Illinois Farm Bureau’s Mark Gebhards, who points out that Trump has been able to blunt the impact of tariffs through payments to farmers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Market Facilitation Program.” This year it cost taxpayers about $16 billion, on top of roughly $15 billion in 2018.

“We’ve said all along we want trade, not aid,” he told VOA. “We don’t want to have to live on hoping that we get another round of market facilitation payments. We really need to find a final way forward — not only the tariffs with China, the UMSCA, Japan, the EU, all these other issues that are out there.”

Little understanding of agriculture

Yet the lack of substantial trade progress during Trump’s first term causes concern among some of his supporters.

“I really feel like he doesn’t understand what happens out here in these flyover states [in the middle of the country],” says Colona, Illinois, farmer Megan Dwyer. “He’s walking a very thin line in what is happening in the ag[riculture] sector.”

Dwyer says the Trump administration’s waivers for oil refineries to use corn-based ethanol, the president’s tweeting, and his mixed results on trade could affect her vote.

“Some of his comments recently around ag are frustrating to me,” she said.

Amid an ongoing impeachment inquiry in the U.S. Congress, a straw poll conducted by Farm Journal Pulse in September showed 76% of 1,138 farmers polled support Trump in 2020, down from 79% in July.

“I think there’s a lot of people who are disappointed,” Shauman said. “But it comes down to the choice they give us, and right now most farmers … I don’t think he’s going to lose many.”

…

Capitol Hill Republicans Rally in Defense of Trump

House Republicans have intensified their dissent against an impeachment inquiry of U.S. President Donald Trump, protesting that the House Intelligence Committee is questioning witnesses in hearings closed to the public and other lawmakers. The protest is part of Republicans’ strategy of attacking the process by which House Democrats probe allegations Trump sought foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Capitol Hill.
 

…

Sorting Out the Multiple Russia Investigations

If you’re baffled by the U.S. Justice Department’s new investigation of its old investigation of Russia election meddling, you’re not alone.

Many Americans can’t help but wonder exactly what it is that federal investigators are probing months after special counsel Robert Mueller concluded his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

The new investigation grew out of an internal Justice Department review of the Russia probe ordered by Attorney General William Barr and came after President Donald Trump and his Republicans allies, assailing the investigation as a “witch hunt,” repeatedly asked that the department “investigate the investigators.”

Barr set things in motion during his January Senate confirmation hearings when he said he had questions about the probe and wanted to examine events surrounding its origins.

In May, he appointed veteran federal prosecutor John Durham to lead what grew into a criminal investigation. Justice Department officials have said little to shed light on the contours of the investigation, which was revealed this week.

Here are some questions that the launch of the new investigation has raised:

Didn’t the Mueller probe get to the bottom of Russian interference in the 2016 election?

The Mueller probe, which started in July 2016 as an FBI counterintelligence investigation into suspicious contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russia, concluded in March 2019.

In his final report to the attorney general, Mueller concluded that while there wasn’t enough evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, he couldn’t determine whether Trump had criminally obstructed his 22-month-long investigation.

Barr subsequently determined that there was no obstruction of justice.

The decision was met with predictably partisan reaction. While Democrats slammed the attorney general for letting Trump off the hook, the president claimed total vindication even as he blasted the investigation by the Justice Department as politically motivated, rekindling calls for probing the probers.

What about the Inspector General’s investigation of FBI surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page?

In March 2018, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, under mounting pressure from congressional Republicans, launched an investigation into allegations that the FBI had inappropriately obtained a warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Page in 2016 and 2017.

The allegations stemmed from the FBI’s use of a widely discredited report, known as the Steele Dossier, in its warrant application. Justice Department officials have denied the charge, saying the dossier, prepared by a former British intelligence agent, formed only a small part of the application.

Horowitz recently completed his investigation, informing congressional leaders this week that the process of declassifying the report is “nearing completion.” He has not disclosed his findings.

Why is the Justice Department investigating itself?

Justice Department officials have been mum about the target of Durham’s investigation, although Barr has said that among questions he wants examined is whether “spying” directed at the Trump campaign in 2016 was “adequately predicated,” meaning based on probable cause.

While insisting that he was not opening an investigation of the FBI, Barr told lawmakers in April that senior intelligence officials might have been at fault during the Russia probe.

“I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon,” Barr testified.

Trump and his Republicans have criticized former FBI Director James Comey, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John Brennan for their roles in investigating his campaign.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said last month that the Durham investigation was examining the extent to which several countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the Trump campaign investigation.

The original inquiry was launched after the Australian government informed the FBI in July 2016 that then-Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos had claimed that Russia had “dirt” on the Clinton campaign.

Papadopoulos had received the tip from a London-based Maltese academic named Joseph Mifsud and relayed it to Australia’s ambassador to the U.K.

Papadopoulos later claimed that Mifsud was an “Italian intelligence asset,” stoking a conspiracy theory that several intelligence agencies, including the CIA, were involved in an effort to undermine the Trump campaign by getting the FBI to investigate it.

Durham is believed to have interviewed dozens of witnesses in connection with how FBI officials handled the Russia investigation from the outset. With the elevation of the review to an investigation, he can now subpoena witnesses and documents.

What connection does the new investigation have to the congressional impeachment inquiry?

Although not directly tied to the investigation, the congressional impeachment inquiry stemmed in part from efforts by the Justice Department and the White House to seek foreign help for Durham’s investigation of the Mueller probe.

During a July 25 call at the center of the impeachment inquiry, Trump repeatedly asked the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to help Barr with his investigation. At the time, Barr was ramping up his review and had asked Trump to call foreign leaders for help.

…

Fonda Arrested for Third Week in a Row in Climate Protests

U.S. actress and activist Jane Fonda has been arrested for the third week in a row while leading a climate change protest outside the U.S. Capitol. 
  
Fonda, 81, was arrested Friday alongside fellow activist and actor Ted Danson, 71. 
  
Fonda’s arrests are part of her “Fire Drill Fridays,” a civil disobedience campaign to raise awareness about climate change. 
  
“We have to behave like our house is on fire, because it is,” Fonda told demonstrators, referencing a phrase used by Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish climate activist. “I’m inspired by Greta Thunberg. … It’s so important that we help people understand that this crisis is urgent.” 
 
Police said they arrested 32 protesters Friday for unlawfully demonstrating outside the Capitol. 
 
Last week, Fonda was arrested alongside actor Sam Waterston, who co-stars with Fonda in the TV series Grace and Frankie. 
 
Fonda, who is planning another demonstration next Friday, is best known outside her TV and film roles for her activism against the Vietnam War. 
  
Danson is also known for his advocacy and in 1987 founded the American Oceans Campaign, which today is known as the nonprofit Oceana. 

…

Gabbard Drops Congressional Race to Focus on Presidential

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says she will focus on her White House bid and not run for reelection to her congressional seat. The congresswoman from Hawaii made the announcement early Friday.

While lagging behind in a crowded Democratic presidential field, Gabbard has gotten renewed attention lately after a heated argument with former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The Hawaii congresswoman fought back after Clinton said in a recent interview that she believes Republicans have “got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.” Clinton, the former senator, U.S. secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, did not name Gabbard directly.

The squabble seemed to give Gabbard renewed energy on the campaign trail.

Gabbard noted in her early morning announcement that the threats of war, international tensions and the threats of a new cold war convinced her she should focus on the presidential race.

“I believe I can best serve the people of Hawaii and our country as your President and Commander-in-Chief,” she said in her statement.

Gabbard, who launched her presidential bid in January, has emphasized her background as a combat veteran. Currently a major in the Army National Guard, she has served for more than 16 years and deployed twice to the Middle East, according to her announcement. She was first elected to Congress in 2012.

Gabbard, 38, was facing a serious primary challenge for her safely Democratic House seat from Kai Kahele, a state senator and combat veteran. Kahele has accused her of neglecting her district as she campaigned for president, has raised $500,000 so far this year and has been endorsed by three of the state’s former governors.
 
Gabbard recently reported collecting no money for her House reelection campaign over the past three months, even as she banked millions of dollars for her presidential effort.
 
Gabbard is the seventh House Democrat to announce this year that they’re not running for reelection, all but one of whom hold safe Democratic seats.

That’s a fraction of the 18 House Republicans who’ve said they will retire, plus another three who’ve already resigned and left Congress.

…

Hundreds Line Up to Attend Congressman Elijah Cummings Funeral

The body of congressman and civil rights champion Elijah Cummings returned Friday to the church where he worshipped in his beloved Baltimore for a final farewell.

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are among the scheduled speakers for the funeral Friday at New Psalmist Baptist Church, where Cummings worshipped for nearly four decades. His bishop, Walter S. Thomas Jr., will deliver the eulogy.

Cummings’ flag-draped casket arrived at the church shortly after 6 a.m. An honor guard of service members walked in the casket as people lining up to enter the sanctuary watched quietly and respectfully in the low light of early morning.

The open casket was placed in the front of the sanctuary with wreaths on either side and an American flag folded in a triangle to the left. Around 8 a.m., mourners began filling the 4,000-seat sanctuary.

“I felt like it was my civic duty, my responsibility to come and pay respects to a man who has done so much for Baltimore city, so much for the people, trying to keep us together,” said the Rev. Jacqueline Williams, 67, of Baltimore, as she waited in line outside in hopes of securing a seat inside for the service.

At dawn, several hundred people were lined up outside the church, waiting for the doors to open. One of them was LaGreta Williams, 68, of New York City, a friend who met Cummings when they were college students in Baltimore in 1969.

She said the teenage Cummings was a natural leader who aspired to become Maryland’s first black governor. She also remembers his infectious laugh, a deep, heavy roar, and his exceptional dancing abilities.

Williams said they remained friends for 50 years and often had lunch when she visited Baltimore.

“I think his legacy is that he was an honest person,” she said. “He wanted everyone to have an equal opportunity so that people could make better decisions for themselves, better choices.”

Bobby Trotter, a 67-year-old Baltimore resident who lives just outside Cummings’ district, recalled how the congressman helped quell tensions in the city after the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who died after sustaining a spinal injury in a police van.

“[Cummings] was a man that believed in helping people, particularly people that were downtrodden. He stood up. He spoke for them,” Trotter said.

Cummings died Oct. 17 at age 68 of complications from longstanding health problems. A son of sharecroppers, he became a lawyer and elected official known for his powerful oratory and advocacy for the poor in his congressional district and beyond.

He represented a congressional district that includes his hometown of Baltimore since 1996 and most recently led one of the U.S. House committees conducting an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, he became the first African American lawmaker to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol. His casket rested in National Statuary Hall for the service and was later moved to a passage directly in front of the House chamber, where he served for 23 years.

Friday’s Baltimore service is also set to include remarks by Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as scripture readings by Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge. Cummings’ daughters, brother and wife are scheduled to speak.

Gospel singer BeBe Winans is scheduled to perform a musical selection. The choir will also perform the hymn “The Church is One Foundation.”

…

Trump’s Foreign Policy Process Stirs Controversy in Washington

From making so-called side deals with Ukraine to pulling U.S. forces from northeastern Syria, U.S. President Donald Trump has gone his own way when it comes to conducting U.S. foreign policy. But the Syria decision has sparked widespread opposition in Washington and in the case of Ukraine, critics say Trump sidestepped career U.S. diplomats to further his own interests against a potential election rival. 

Despite criticism, U.S. President Donald Trump is standing by his decision to move U.S. troops from the Syrian-Turkish border, where they fought alongside longtime Kurdish allies.
 
“They stayed for almost 10 years. Let someone else fight over this long, bloodstained sand,” Trump said.

This, as the top U.S. official to Syria appeared to distance himself from Trump’s decision.
 
“Were you consulted about the withdrawal of troops as was recently done?” Senator Bob Menendez, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked James Jeffrey, the U.S. Special Representative for Syria.

“I personally was not consulted,” Jeffrey said.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Trump to Lift Turkey Sanctions

US president says he made decision after Ankara informed him that its ceasefire in an offensive against Kurds in northeastern Syria will be permanent

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, other diplomats testified about the Trump administration’s delay providing approved U.S military assistance to Ukraine.  

A written statement by one described how the White House bypassed normal diplomatic channels to press Ukraine to investigate Democrats and the Bidens in return for military aid.    

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

White House Admits Quid Pro Quo Between Trump and Ukraine

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney says Trump froze aid to Ukraine to pressure it to investigate Democrats and the 2016 presidential election

Democratic lawmakers have denounced this.

“The idea that vital military assistance would be withheld for such a patently political reason, for the reason of serving the president’s re-election campaign is a phenomenal breach of the president’s duty to defend our national security,” said Democrat Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Trump’s actions on Ukraine could threaten his presidency as the impeachment inquiry continues.  
 
“We have agencies, we have tasked areas along government, whose job it is to investigate those. And if President Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for their activities there, it should have been done through the diplomatic channels,” said Shannon Bow O’Brien of the University of Texas at Austin.

Those normal diplomatic channels have set the United States apart from countries whose policies are set by autocratic leaders, says terrorism expert Mike Newton.  
 
“The checks and balances, where agencies push back against each other, and really experienced, smart policy makers wrestle with choices and consequences and diplomatic fallout and maybe military best practices,” Newton said.
 

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

House Speaker Pelosi Opens Trump Impeachment Inquiry

Move has potential to reshape current presidency and further divide the nation just a year before Donald Trump plans to stand for re-election

When this process is bypassed, experts say, U.S. credibility around the world is damaged.
 
“If there are doubts about the President’s decisions which there are in the State Department and the Pentagon, and the intelligence community as well as in the Congress, there’s real questions about cohesiveness of U.S. foreign policy and whether we have a real strategy,” said Mark Simakovsky of the Atlantic Council, an international affairs think tank.
 
Donald Trump was elected on promises to break with traditional U.S. foreign policy, and his supporters show no sign of abandoning him.

But the impeachment inquiry and outcry over his Syria policy show there are limits to his approach.  
 

…

Facebook Seeks to Clarify Zuckerberg Remarks on False Political Ads

Facebook reiterated its policy of not removing misleading or bogus political ads Thursday, seeking to offer clarification after CEO Mark Zuckerberg offered Congress confusing and sometimes incomplete testimony on the subject. 
 
On Wednesday, in response to questions from House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, Zuckerberg seemed to suggest Facebook did use third-party fact-checkers to verify political ads. He contradicted himself moments later, saying the company did not want to get involved in verifying the truth of political claims. 
 
“Somebody fact-checks on ads? You contract with someone to do that. Is that right?” Waters asked Zuckerberg. “Yes,” he replied. 
 
Later, during an exchange with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zuckerberg said his company would not remove political ads from candidates — even if false — because he believed voters deserve unfiltered access to the words of politicians. He said exceptions would be made for political ads that encouraged violence or sought to suppress voting. 

Advocates, PACs
 
Facebook on Thursday sought to set the record straight, noting that while it will not fact-check political ads from candidates, it does evaluate the accuracy of political ads from political advocacy groups or political action committees. 
  
“In a democracy, people should decide what is credible, not tech companies,” the company wrote in a statement emailed to the Associated Press on Thursday. “That’s why — like other internet platforms and broadcasters — we don’t fact-check ads from politicians.” 
 
Facebook’s policy is similar to those at other internet platforms, reflecting the reluctance of big tech companies to police political content on their platforms. 
 
“Given the sensitivity around political ads, we have considered whether we should ban them altogether,” Facebook said in its statement to The Associated Press on Thursday. “But political ads are important for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that use our platform to reach voters and their communities.” 
 
CNN chief Jeff Zucker called Facebook’s policy not to monitor political ads for truth-telling “ludicrous” Thursday. He noted that his network recently rejected two ads that President Donald Trump’s campaign sought to air, saying they repeated allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden that had been proven false. 
 
Facebook ran a similar ad. 

Unsatisfied
  
Zuckerberg’s comments on Facebook’s hands-off policy also failed to satisfy Waters, who said Wednesday that it would give “anyone Facebook labels a politician a platform to lie, mislead and misinform the American people, which will also allow Facebook to sell more ads. The impact of this will be a massive voter suppression effort.” 
 
Earlier this month, Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts created an intentionally false Facebook ad claiming that Zuckerberg had endorsed President Donald Trump for re-election. Warren did so to highlight her critique of Facebook’s political ad policies.  

During his exchange with Ocasio-Cortez, Zuckerberg also made misleading comments about the company’s reliance on third-party fact-checkers to evaluate false news stories posted to the site. 
 
Ocasio-Cortez asked Zuckerberg why Facebook had made the conservative publication The Daily Caller one of its third-party fact-checkers. 
 
In actuality, the fact-checking company is Check Your Fact, a subsidiary of The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller was founded by Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson, who has been criticized for declaring white supremacy a “hoax.” 
 
“We actually don’t appoint the independent fact-checkers,” Zuckerberg said in a response. “They go through an independent organization … that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.” 

‘A misrepresentation’
 
Not so, said Baybars Orsek, who directs that organization, the International Fact-Checking Network at the St. Petersburg, Florida-based Poynter Institute. 
  
“It is a misrepresentation of the program,” he said, explaining that his network works to certify fact-checking organizations, including Check Your Fact. 
 
Facebook requires its fact-checkers to be network-certified but has the final say on which fact-checkers it works with. 
 
“They make their decisions based on their priorities,” he said. “We do not appoint fact-checkers to work with Facebook.” 
 
The Associated Press is a participant in Facebook’s initiative to fact-check and identify misinformation being shared widely online on Facebook’s platform. 

…

Ohioan Ryan Drops Out of Democratic Presidential Race

U.S. Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio said Thursday that he was dropping out of the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 

The moderate Ryan had sought backing from blue-collar workers who left the Democratic Party to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 but are now unhappy with the president. However, he struggled to emerge from the large field of Democrats seeking the 2020 nomination. He barely made any headway in the polls and failed to qualify for the last two Democratic debates. 

Ryan thanked all who supported him and said he would focus his attention on seeking re-election to his seat in the House of Representatives. 

The Ohioan’s departure left 18 Democrats, led by Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, still in the race, down from a high of 24. 

…

White House Plans to End Federal Subscriptions to New York Times, Washington Post

The White House said on Thursday it is planning to order federal agencies to end their subscriptions to The New York Times and the Washington Post after repeated criticism of their coverage by President Donald Trump.

White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement that the move would generate savings, but Trump on Monday said the White House would likely end its subscriptions to the papers because they are “fake,” a term he has used to describe coverage that he views as unfavorable.

“Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving for taxpayers – hundreds of thousands of dollars,”  Grisham said.

It was not immediately clear when the directive would be issued or go into effect. The Wall Street Journal reported the White House’s plan earlier on Tuesday.

The New York Times declined to comment, while the Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump has often railed against the coverage of him and his administration and singled out the two newspapers in particular.

He has made complaints about the U.S. media a regular staple at his campaign rallies.

Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel on Monday the White House would likely cut its subscriptions to the two newspapers.

“We don’t even want it in the White House anymore.  We’re going to probably terminate that (The New York Times) and The Washington Post. They’re fake,” Trump said.

It was not immediately clear how many subscriptions to the two newspapers the U.S. government has. The Washington Post offers free digital access to federal employees with a valid government email address.

Trump is a fervent reader of the two newspapers, a habit he is unlikely to break even after the directive is issued, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The order comes as Trump comes under perhaps the most focused scrutiny of his administration, in the form of the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry.

The probe, which was launched last month, stems from a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump pressed Zelenskiy to investigate the family of one of Trump’s political rivals, leading Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.  

…

Biden Holds Lead in Democratic Race, For Now 

A new CNN poll shows former Vice President Joe Biden with a 15-point lead over his rivals in the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.  Other recent polls have shown a closer race between Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders trailing in third place.  As VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports, Warren’s rise in the polls has also brought greater scrutiny from her rivals.

…

House Democrats Pass Election Security Bill

The House approved legislation Wednesday to better protect the country’s elections from foreign interference, the third major bill the Democratic-controlled chamber has passed this year addressing problems that arose in the 2016 presidential election. 
 
The 227-181 vote came as lawmakers continued to pursue an impeachment inquiry centered on allegations that President Donald Trump improperly solicited election help from Ukraine ahead of the 2020 vote. It also came months after special counsel Robert Mueller finished his report on 2016 election interference, finding numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy between the two. Democrats want to prevent such actions in the future and ensure that campaigns know they are illegal. 
 
The Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act, or SHIELD Act, would require that candidates and political committees notify the FBI and other authorities if a foreign power offers campaign help. It also would tighten restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals and require more transparency in political ads on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. 

Ban on exchanges with foreigners
 
And it would explicitly prohibit campaigns from exchanging campaign-related information with foreign governments and their agents. The latter provision was aimed at reports that officials in Trump’s 2016 campaign shared polling data with a person associated with Russian intelligence. 
 
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who was the bill’s chief sponsor, said it would close loopholes that allow dishonest behavior, increase disclosure and transparency requirements, and ensure that anyone who engages with foreign actors to influence the outcome of an election will be held accountable by law. 
 
“Most Americans know that foreign governments have no business interfering in our elections,” said Lofgren, who chairs the House Administration Committee. “We should all be able to agree that we need to protect our democracy — and with a sense of urgency. This is not a partisan opinion. Nothing less than our national security is at stake.”  

But Illinois Representative Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the Administration panel, called the bill a thinly disguised bid by Democrats to prop up impeachment. “That’s why we’re here today: not to make real, legislative progress on preventing foreign interference in our elections, but to push partisan politics for the Democratic agenda,” he said. 
 
The White House threatened to veto the bill if it reached the president’s desk, saying it was redundant, overly broad and unenforceable. The bill’s “expansive definitions seem designed to instill a persistent fear among Americans engaged in political activity that any interactions they may have with a foreign national could put them in legal jeopardy,” the White House said. 
 
Davis called the bill’s language on social media overly broad and said Facebook and other private companies were already taking significant steps to help prevent election interference on their platforms. As written, the Democratic bill poses a threat to the First Amendment, he said, noting that it is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups. 

‘Wrong balance’
 
The ACLU said in a statement that the SHIELD Act “strikes the wrong balance, sweeping too broadly and encompassing more speech than necessary to achieve its legitimate goals” of preventing foreign interference in U.S. elections. 
 
The bill came as a bipartisan Senate committee said Russia’s large-scale effort to interfere in the 2016 election was a “vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than was initially understood.” 
  
In a report earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee described Kremlin-backed social media activities as part of a “broader, sophisticated and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society.” 
  
Senators urged Trump to warn the public about efforts by Russia and other countries to interfere in U.S. elections — a subject he has largely avoided — and to take steps to thwart attempts by hostile nations to use social media to meddle in the 2020 presidential contest. 
 
The House approved a separate bill in June that would require paper ballots in federal elections and authorize $775 million in grants over the next two years to help states secure their voting systems. 
 
Lawmakers also approved a bill in March aimed at reducing the role of big money in politics, ensuring fair elections and strengthening ethics standards. The measure would make it easier for people to register and vote, tighten election security and require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. 
 
Republicans called the bill a power grab that amounts to a federal takeover of elections and could cost billions of dollars. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the proposal was dead on arrival in the Senate. McConnell has declined to bring up a stand-alone bill on election security, though he supported an effort to send $250 million in additional election security funds to states to shore up their systems ahead of 2020. 
 
House Democrats are conducting an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, including his request on a July phone call for the country to open an investigation into potential 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden and his family. Trump said he did nothing wrong and called the conversation “perfect.” 

…

ICE Withdraws Big Fines for Immigrants Living in Churches

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is reversing course months after threatening six-figure fines against immigrants taking sanctuary at churches. 
  
Seven women have been notified that ICE, using its discretion, is withdrawing its intent to pursue fines of $300,000 or more for their refusal to leave the country as ordered, according to the National Sanctuary Collective, a coalition of attorneys, organizers and other advocates for them. They count it as a victory. 
  
“We knew that these exorbitant fines were illegal and were nothing more than a tool to scare our clients and retaliate against them for fighting back and standing up to this administration,” attorney Lizbeth Mateo, who represents a Mexican woman living at an Ohio church, said in a statement. Mateo said immigration officials should exercise the same discretion “to release sanctuary families.” 
  
The immigrants have remained in the U.S. in violation of the law and still are subject to removal orders that ICE will enforce “using any and all available means,” agency spokesman Richard Rocha said in an email. He said ICE also could reassess the fines.   

Immigrants have sought relief from deportation at houses of worship because immigration officials consider them “sensitive locations” and avoid enforcement action at such sites. Maria Chavalan-Sut, an indigenous woman from Guatemala seeking asylum, moved into a United Methodist church in Charlottesville, Virginia. Another woman has lived in sanctuary with her 11-year-old son in Austin, Texas, for more than two years. 
  
Mateo’s client, Edith Espinal, has stayed at a Columbus church for the past two years. She was notified in June that she faced a fine of nearly $500,000. 
  
In a statement, she said ICE’s reversal on the fines was “an example of what speaking out and organizing can accomplish.” 
 
The agency said it issued nine notifications in June about its intent to pursue fines. It said Wednesday that eight of those had been withdrawn and one still was being pursued. It didn’t identify those cases or name the immigrants involved. 

Top priority for Trump
 
The six-figure penalties were another reminder of how President Donald Trump has made cracking down immigration, legal and illegal, a top domestic priority.   
  
Immigrants who are free on bond but ordered to leave the country are typically given a date to report to immigration authorities for removal. Others are ordered to check in with authorities, which, under former President Barack Obama-era policies, generally didn’t result in deportation unless the person was convicted of a serious crime in the United States. 
  
Trump lifted those restrictions almost immediately, causing people to get deported when they reported to ICE offices as instructed and discouraging others from coming. 

…

Pentagon Official Overseeing Ukraine Policy to Testify in Impeachment Probe

U.S. lawmakers overseeing the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump’s actions towards Ukraine will hear more closed door testimony Wednesday from a high-ranking official.

Laura Cooper is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. She is expected to testify about $250 million in military aid for Ukraine that had been held up by the White House, despite the Pentagon’s insistence that it be released.

Cooper’s testimony comes one day after the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers he was told the White House would only free military aid to Ukraine if it publicly promised to investigate Democrats and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

US Ambassador to Ukraine Confirms Quid Pro Quo with Trump

William B. Taylor tells House impeachment inquiry he was told by other senior diplomats Trump would only free aid to Ukraine if Kyiv publicly promised to investigate Bidens and Democrats

Acting U.S. Ambassador William B. Taylor’s closed-door testimony in the Trump impeachment inquiry contradicts the president’s assertion that there was no “quid pro quo” with Ukraine.  But the White House continues to deny there was any such arrangement.

“Today was just more triple hearsay and selective leaks from the Democrats’ politically motivated closed-door secretive hearings. Every day this nonsense continues, more taxpayer time and money is wasted,”White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement late Tuesday.

Ambassador Taylor repeated his belief that it was “crazy” to make badly needed military aid to Ukraine contingent on Kyiv’s promise to investigate alleged corruption by ex-U.S. Vice President Biden.

Taylor said in his opening statement that he had a telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to the EU and Trump campaign donor Gordon Sondland, who testified last week.

“During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants (Ukrainian) President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.”

Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. Trump alleges that when Biden was vice president, he threatened to hold up loan guarantees to Ukraine unless it stopped an earlier corruption probe of Burisma.

But there has never been any evidence of corruption by the Bidens. Allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Democrats was based on a debunked conspiracy theory.

Taylor said Sondland told him Trump wanted Zelenskiy “in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

According to Taylor, Sondland admitted he made a “mistake” when he told Ukrainian officials that only a White House meeting with Trump depended on Zelenskiy publicly promising investigations.

“In fact, Ambassador Sondland said ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,” Taylor added.

Sondland had earlier said when he told other diplomats Trump insisted there would be no “quid pro quo” with Ukraine, he was actually repeating what Trump told him what to say in a telephone call.

Democratic-led House committees are holding closed-door hearings to decide whether to recommend Trump’s impeachment in part for allegedly reaching out to a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz called Taylor’s testimony “The most damning testimony I’ve heard.”

…

Texas No Longer Sure Bet for Trump

With its changing demographics, Texas – until recently a Republican stronghold – is no longer a sure bet for U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The president is giving the state a lot of campaign time, including this month’s rally, the third in the past year. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports from Dallas about how both Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for a big fight ahead of next year’s election.

…