Pompeo confirms he was on Trump's Ukraine call
He also defended the substance of the leaders’ conversation, which is at the heart of congressional Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
By QUINT FORGEY
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed Wednesday that he listened in to the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, and defended the substance of the conversation now at the heart of congressional Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
“I was on the phone call,” Pompeo told reporters during a news conference in Rome.
Pompeo said the call “was in the context of” U.S. foreign policy goals for the Eastern European nation that have been “remarkably consistent,” including countering Russian aggression in the region, bolstering the Ukrainian economy, and “helping the Ukrainians to get graft out and corruption outside” their bureaucracy.
“It's what the State Department officials that I've had the privilege to lead have been engaged in, and it's what we will continue to do — even while all this noise is going on,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal first reported Monday that Pompeo took part in the call.
The remarks from America’s top diplomat come as he is engaged in a standoff with three House Democratic chairmen who subpoenaed him Friday for materials related to Trump’s efforts to seek a Ukrainian investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.
But Pompeo rebuffed the committee leaders Tuesday, signaling in a letter that he would not comply with their request for documents or interviews with senior State Department officials identified as important players in the Ukraine scandal.
“I will use all means at my disposal to prevent and expose any attempts to intimidate the dedicated professionals whom I am proud to lead and serve alongside at the Department of State,” Pompeo wrote.
In response, the chairmen warned Pompeo in a joint statement that “any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress — including State Department employees — is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.”
Pompeo asserted Wednesday that though the Democrats' demands “deeply violate fundamental principles of separation of powers,” the State Department will “of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate” with Congress.
“But we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system,” he said. “And we won't tolerate folks on Capitol Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees. That's unacceptable, and it's not something that I'm going to permit to happen.”
Despite Pompeo's objections, lawmakers are scheduled to hear testimony Thursday from Kurt Volker, who resigned last week as U.S. special envoy for Ukraine negotiations.
One day after Trump's call with Zelensky — during which the president urged his foreign counterpart to work with Attorney General William Barr on a probe into the Bidens — Volker visited Kyiv and reportedly advised the Ukrainian leadership about how to "navigate" Trump's demands, according to a whistleblower complaint lodged by an anonymous member of the intelligence community.
Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is also scheduled to sit for a deposition before members of Congress on Oct. 11. She was recalled from her post in May, and Trump criticized her as "bad news" when speaking to Zelensky, according to a summary of the call released by the White House.
Pompeo's acknowledgment that he participated in the call, after dodging a question earlier this month about his knowledge of the conversation, draws him deeper into the political crisis consuming the White House, and is sure to provide fodder for Democrats probing whether his State Department played a role in Trump's attempts to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.
Later Wednesday, the State Department inspector general is expected to brief congressional staffers on Ukraine-related issues after making a mysterious “urgent request” to appear on Capitol Hill.
October 02, 2019
Carina nebula
They are not alive -- but they are dying. The unusual forms found in the Carina nebula, a few of which are featured here, might best be described as evaporating. Energetic light and winds from nearby stars are breaking apart the dark dust grains that make the iconic forms opaque. Ironically the figures, otherwise known as dark molecular clouds or bright rimmed globules, frequently create in their midst the very stars that later destroy them. The floating space structures pictured here by the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope span a few light months. The Great Nebula in Carina itself spans about 30 light years, lies about 7,500 light years away, and can be seen with a small telescope toward the constellation of Keel(Carina).
Peculiar Sounds
NASA's InSight 'Hears' Peculiar Sounds on Mars
Put an ear to the ground on Mars and you'll be rewarded with a symphony of sounds. Granted, you'll need superhuman hearing, but NASA's InSight lander comes equipped with a very special "ear."
The spacecraft's exquisitely sensitive seismometer, called the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS), can pick up vibrations as subtle as a breeze. The instrument was provided by the French space agency, Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES), and its partners.
SEIS was designed to listen for marsquakes. Scientists want to study how the seismic waves of these quakes move through the planet's interior, revealing the deep inner structure of Mars for the first time.
But after the seismometer was set down by InSight's robotic arm, Mars seemed shy. It didn't produce its first rumbling until this past April, and this first quake turned out to be an odd duck. It had a surprisingly high-frequency seismic signal compared to what the science team has heard since then. Out of more than 100 events detected to date, about 21 are strongly considered to be quakes. The remainder could be quakes as well, but the science team hasn't ruled out other causes.
Quakes
Put on headphones to listen to two of the more representative quakes SEIS has detected. These occurred on May 22, 2019 (the 173rd Martian day, or sol, of the mission) and July 25, 2019 (Sol 235). Far below the human range of hearing, these sonifications from SEIS had to be speeded up and slightly processed to be audible through headphones. Both were recorded by the "very broad band sensors" on SEIS, which are more sensitive at lower frequencies than its short period sensors.
The Sol 173 quake is about a magnitude 3.7; the Sol 235 quake is about a magnitude 3.3.
Each quake is a subtle rumble. The Sol 235 quake becomes particularly bass-heavy toward the end of the event. Both suggest that the Martian crust is like a mix of the Earth's crust and the Moon's. Cracks in Earth's crust seal over time as water fills them with new minerals. This enables sound waves to continue uninterrupted as they pass through old fractures. Drier crusts like the Moon's remain fractured after impacts, scattering sound waves for tens of minutes rather than allowing them to travel in a straight line. Mars, with its cratered surface, is slightly more Moon-like, with seismic waves ringing for a minute or so, whereas quakes on Earth can come and go in seconds.
Mechanical Sounds and Wind Gusts
SEIS has no trouble identifying quiet quakes, but its sensitive ear means scientists have lots of other noises to filter out. Over time, the team has learned to recognize the different sounds. And while some are trickier than others to spot, they all have made InSight's presence on Mars feel more real to those working with the spacecraft.
"It's been exciting, especially in the beginning, hearing the first vibrations from the lander," said Constantinos Charalambous, an InSight science team member at Imperial College London who works with the SP sensors. "You're imagining what's really happening on Mars as InSight sits on the open landscape."
Charalambous and Nobuaki Fuji of Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris provided the audio samples for this story, including the one below, which is also best heard with headphones and captures the array of sounds they're hearing.
On March 6, 2019, a camera on InSight's robotic arm was scanning the surface in front of the lander. Each movement of the arm produces what to SEIS is a piercing noise.
Wind gusts can also create noise. The team is always on the hunt for quakes, but they've found the twilight hours are one of the best times to do so. During the day, sunlight warms the air and creates more wind interference than at night.
Evening is also when peculiar sounds that the InSight team has nicknamed "dinks and donks" become more prevalent. The team knows they're coming from delicate parts within the seismometer expanding and contracting against one another and thinks heat loss may be the factor, similar to how a car engine "ticks" after it's turned off and begins cooling.
You can hear a number of these dinks and donks in this next set of sounds, recorded just after sundown on July 16, 2019 (Sol 226). Listen carefully and you can also pick out an eerie whistling that the team thinks may be caused by interference in the seismometer's electronics.
Put an ear to the ground on Mars and you'll be rewarded with a symphony of sounds. Granted, you'll need superhuman hearing, but NASA's InSight lander comes equipped with a very special "ear."
The spacecraft's exquisitely sensitive seismometer, called the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS), can pick up vibrations as subtle as a breeze. The instrument was provided by the French space agency, Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES), and its partners.
SEIS was designed to listen for marsquakes. Scientists want to study how the seismic waves of these quakes move through the planet's interior, revealing the deep inner structure of Mars for the first time.
But after the seismometer was set down by InSight's robotic arm, Mars seemed shy. It didn't produce its first rumbling until this past April, and this first quake turned out to be an odd duck. It had a surprisingly high-frequency seismic signal compared to what the science team has heard since then. Out of more than 100 events detected to date, about 21 are strongly considered to be quakes. The remainder could be quakes as well, but the science team hasn't ruled out other causes.
Quakes
Put on headphones to listen to two of the more representative quakes SEIS has detected. These occurred on May 22, 2019 (the 173rd Martian day, or sol, of the mission) and July 25, 2019 (Sol 235). Far below the human range of hearing, these sonifications from SEIS had to be speeded up and slightly processed to be audible through headphones. Both were recorded by the "very broad band sensors" on SEIS, which are more sensitive at lower frequencies than its short period sensors.
The Sol 173 quake is about a magnitude 3.7; the Sol 235 quake is about a magnitude 3.3.
Each quake is a subtle rumble. The Sol 235 quake becomes particularly bass-heavy toward the end of the event. Both suggest that the Martian crust is like a mix of the Earth's crust and the Moon's. Cracks in Earth's crust seal over time as water fills them with new minerals. This enables sound waves to continue uninterrupted as they pass through old fractures. Drier crusts like the Moon's remain fractured after impacts, scattering sound waves for tens of minutes rather than allowing them to travel in a straight line. Mars, with its cratered surface, is slightly more Moon-like, with seismic waves ringing for a minute or so, whereas quakes on Earth can come and go in seconds.
Mechanical Sounds and Wind Gusts
SEIS has no trouble identifying quiet quakes, but its sensitive ear means scientists have lots of other noises to filter out. Over time, the team has learned to recognize the different sounds. And while some are trickier than others to spot, they all have made InSight's presence on Mars feel more real to those working with the spacecraft.
"It's been exciting, especially in the beginning, hearing the first vibrations from the lander," said Constantinos Charalambous, an InSight science team member at Imperial College London who works with the SP sensors. "You're imagining what's really happening on Mars as InSight sits on the open landscape."
Charalambous and Nobuaki Fuji of Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris provided the audio samples for this story, including the one below, which is also best heard with headphones and captures the array of sounds they're hearing.
On March 6, 2019, a camera on InSight's robotic arm was scanning the surface in front of the lander. Each movement of the arm produces what to SEIS is a piercing noise.
Wind gusts can also create noise. The team is always on the hunt for quakes, but they've found the twilight hours are one of the best times to do so. During the day, sunlight warms the air and creates more wind interference than at night.
Evening is also when peculiar sounds that the InSight team has nicknamed "dinks and donks" become more prevalent. The team knows they're coming from delicate parts within the seismometer expanding and contracting against one another and thinks heat loss may be the factor, similar to how a car engine "ticks" after it's turned off and begins cooling.
You can hear a number of these dinks and donks in this next set of sounds, recorded just after sundown on July 16, 2019 (Sol 226). Listen carefully and you can also pick out an eerie whistling that the team thinks may be caused by interference in the seismometer's electronics.
October 01, 2019
Spinning and Spinning and Spinning..........
48 hours illustrating how Trump’s abuse-of-power scandal has split Fox News
Hannity is pushing Clinton conspiracy theories while the network’s top judicial analyst talks about impeachment.
By Aaron Rupar
What a difference a few hours makes.
Had you tuned in to Fox News for Monday’s edition of Sean Hannity’s show, you would’ve been treated to President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushing nonsensical conspiracy theories about prominent Democrats colluding with Ukraine after the 2016 presidential election to dig up dirt on Trump — claims that were met with zero pushback from Hannity.
But had you been watching Neil Cavuto’s late-afternoon show earlier that day, you would’ve seen Fox News senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano making a case for Trump’s impeachment.
To be clear, none of the above is especially new. Hannity has been the staunchest of staunch Trump backers for years, while more establishment conservative figures like Napolitano and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace have established reputations as bastions of rationality amid the surrounding sea of MAGA on their network.
But the juxtaposition between Monday’s versions of Cavuto and Hannity illustrates the split that Trump’s abuse-of-power scandal and the growing support for Trump’s impeachment has wrought at Fox News. The network has spent years serving as something akin to an unofficial arm of the Trump campaign, but it reportedly has started thinking about life after Trump, at least behind the scenes.
The split between daytime and primetime burst into public view
While Fox News has a well-earned reputation for riding the Trump train, network personalities like Napolitano and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace haven’t been shy about occasionally criticizing Trump. But now, with a presidency seemingly on the line, the stakes are a bit higher.
Primetime hosts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson along with Fox & Friends are still doing everything possible to spin for the president — including, in Carlson’s case, devoting part of Monday’s show to pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton — but any criticisms of Trump made elsewhere on the network are increasingly being interpreted as veiled shots at other Fox News personalities. For instance, Wallace went viral last Thursday for sounding off about the “astonishing” and “deeply misleading” talking points being used by Trump’s defenders in the wake of the whistleblower report that accused Trump of abusing his office during his dealings with Ukraine.
Trump — who has been slowly souring on Fox News for weeks now, in part because it won’t rig polls for him — indicated on Sunday that he’s especially sensitive to even the mildest criticism coming from network personalities. After chief national correspondent and occasional Fox & Friends host Ed Henry did an interview with right-wing pundit Mark Levin in which Henry gently pushed back on Levin’s pro-Trump talking points, Trump became so incensed that he started retweeting any and all anti-Henry tweets he could find, including one posted by a parody account that makes fun of him for disliking sharks.
Notably, however, Trump has had nothing to say about Wallace’s remarkably hard-hitting interview with White House adviser Stephen Miller on Fox News Sunday a few hours later — one in which Wallace demolished Miller’s talking points and wouldn’t let him get away with deflections that are standard fare on Hannity.
(Trump has posted many tweets over the years praising Wallace but attacked him for interviewing Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg in May, writing, “Fox is moving more and more to the losing (wrong) side in covering the Dems ... They forgot the people [who] got them there. Chris Wallace said, ‘I actually think, whether you like his opinions or not, that Mayor Pete has a lot of substance ... fascinating biography.’ Gee, he never speaks well of me — I like Mike Wallace better.)”
Again, Wallace conducting a tough interview with a Trump administration official is far from unprecedented. But the split between Fox News’ daytime and primetime burst into public view last week when afternoon host (and arguably the network’s most outspoken Trump critic) Shepard Smith feuded for two days with Tucker Carlson, a primetime host who, like Hannity, reliably defends the president. The conflict erupted after Smith’s show featured commentary from Napolitano last Tuesday in which he suggested Trump’s dealings with Ukraine amounted to crimes.
Carlson fired back that night by giving former prosecutor and frequent Fox News primetime guest Joseph diGenova a platform to bash Napolitano, calling him “a fool.” Smith responded the next day by characterizing diGenova as “a partisan guest” and criticizing Carlson for not defending his colleague. According to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman, the feud only came to an end after network brass admonished Smith to stop attacking Carlson or risk losing his show.
If Sherman’s reporting is correct about Carlson effectively winning that feud, he and diGenova weren’t able to savor it for long. In yet another stark illustration of how complicated the dynamic at Fox News has become, Wallace reported on the same edition of Fox News Sunday in which he interviewed Miller that diGenova has been “working off the books” with Giuliani to help Trump dig up dirt on Joe Biden — a revelation diGenova has since admitted to. And yet Wallace, while breaking that news, failed to mention that despite his secret work for Trump, diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, have made over 90 Fox News appearances this year alone.
Fox News execs are reportedly tiring of Trump’s act — but you wouldn’t know it from watching the product yet
The split that erupted in front of cameras last week reportedly reflects behind-the-scenes tensions. In his Vanity Fair piece, Sherman reports that Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, has recently “been holding strategy conversations with Fox executives and anchors about how Fox News should prepare for life after Trump.”
Those conversations have apparently been expedited by the whistleblower complaint and the broader abuse-of-power scandal, which Sherman reports that even Hannity is concerned about:
Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me. (Hannity did not respond to a request for comment). And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. A person close to Lachlan told me that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for seventeen years, and “the success has never depended on any one administration.” (A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment.)
But whatever private concerns Hannity has, they haven’t yet manifested themselves on his show, which remains all Trump talking points all the time — even if he seems to be a little less enthusiastic about the act than he used to be.
If Sherman is right about network brass siding with Carlson instead of Smith, that indicates that higher-ups aren’t dismounting the Trump train just yet. Ultimately, viewers will know that Fox News is really changing when primetime hosts either start criticizing the president or are replaced with hosts who will — and we aren’t anywhere near that point yet.
Hannity is pushing Clinton conspiracy theories while the network’s top judicial analyst talks about impeachment.
By Aaron Rupar
What a difference a few hours makes.
Had you tuned in to Fox News for Monday’s edition of Sean Hannity’s show, you would’ve been treated to President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushing nonsensical conspiracy theories about prominent Democrats colluding with Ukraine after the 2016 presidential election to dig up dirt on Trump — claims that were met with zero pushback from Hannity.
But had you been watching Neil Cavuto’s late-afternoon show earlier that day, you would’ve seen Fox News senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano making a case for Trump’s impeachment.
To be clear, none of the above is especially new. Hannity has been the staunchest of staunch Trump backers for years, while more establishment conservative figures like Napolitano and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace have established reputations as bastions of rationality amid the surrounding sea of MAGA on their network.
But the juxtaposition between Monday’s versions of Cavuto and Hannity illustrates the split that Trump’s abuse-of-power scandal and the growing support for Trump’s impeachment has wrought at Fox News. The network has spent years serving as something akin to an unofficial arm of the Trump campaign, but it reportedly has started thinking about life after Trump, at least behind the scenes.
The split between daytime and primetime burst into public view
While Fox News has a well-earned reputation for riding the Trump train, network personalities like Napolitano and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace haven’t been shy about occasionally criticizing Trump. But now, with a presidency seemingly on the line, the stakes are a bit higher.
Primetime hosts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson along with Fox & Friends are still doing everything possible to spin for the president — including, in Carlson’s case, devoting part of Monday’s show to pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton — but any criticisms of Trump made elsewhere on the network are increasingly being interpreted as veiled shots at other Fox News personalities. For instance, Wallace went viral last Thursday for sounding off about the “astonishing” and “deeply misleading” talking points being used by Trump’s defenders in the wake of the whistleblower report that accused Trump of abusing his office during his dealings with Ukraine.
Trump — who has been slowly souring on Fox News for weeks now, in part because it won’t rig polls for him — indicated on Sunday that he’s especially sensitive to even the mildest criticism coming from network personalities. After chief national correspondent and occasional Fox & Friends host Ed Henry did an interview with right-wing pundit Mark Levin in which Henry gently pushed back on Levin’s pro-Trump talking points, Trump became so incensed that he started retweeting any and all anti-Henry tweets he could find, including one posted by a parody account that makes fun of him for disliking sharks.
Notably, however, Trump has had nothing to say about Wallace’s remarkably hard-hitting interview with White House adviser Stephen Miller on Fox News Sunday a few hours later — one in which Wallace demolished Miller’s talking points and wouldn’t let him get away with deflections that are standard fare on Hannity.
(Trump has posted many tweets over the years praising Wallace but attacked him for interviewing Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg in May, writing, “Fox is moving more and more to the losing (wrong) side in covering the Dems ... They forgot the people [who] got them there. Chris Wallace said, ‘I actually think, whether you like his opinions or not, that Mayor Pete has a lot of substance ... fascinating biography.’ Gee, he never speaks well of me — I like Mike Wallace better.)”
Again, Wallace conducting a tough interview with a Trump administration official is far from unprecedented. But the split between Fox News’ daytime and primetime burst into public view last week when afternoon host (and arguably the network’s most outspoken Trump critic) Shepard Smith feuded for two days with Tucker Carlson, a primetime host who, like Hannity, reliably defends the president. The conflict erupted after Smith’s show featured commentary from Napolitano last Tuesday in which he suggested Trump’s dealings with Ukraine amounted to crimes.
Carlson fired back that night by giving former prosecutor and frequent Fox News primetime guest Joseph diGenova a platform to bash Napolitano, calling him “a fool.” Smith responded the next day by characterizing diGenova as “a partisan guest” and criticizing Carlson for not defending his colleague. According to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman, the feud only came to an end after network brass admonished Smith to stop attacking Carlson or risk losing his show.
If Sherman’s reporting is correct about Carlson effectively winning that feud, he and diGenova weren’t able to savor it for long. In yet another stark illustration of how complicated the dynamic at Fox News has become, Wallace reported on the same edition of Fox News Sunday in which he interviewed Miller that diGenova has been “working off the books” with Giuliani to help Trump dig up dirt on Joe Biden — a revelation diGenova has since admitted to. And yet Wallace, while breaking that news, failed to mention that despite his secret work for Trump, diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, have made over 90 Fox News appearances this year alone.
Fox News execs are reportedly tiring of Trump’s act — but you wouldn’t know it from watching the product yet
The split that erupted in front of cameras last week reportedly reflects behind-the-scenes tensions. In his Vanity Fair piece, Sherman reports that Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, has recently “been holding strategy conversations with Fox executives and anchors about how Fox News should prepare for life after Trump.”
Those conversations have apparently been expedited by the whistleblower complaint and the broader abuse-of-power scandal, which Sherman reports that even Hannity is concerned about:
Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me. (Hannity did not respond to a request for comment). And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. A person close to Lachlan told me that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for seventeen years, and “the success has never depended on any one administration.” (A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment.)
But whatever private concerns Hannity has, they haven’t yet manifested themselves on his show, which remains all Trump talking points all the time — even if he seems to be a little less enthusiastic about the act than he used to be.
If Sherman is right about network brass siding with Carlson instead of Smith, that indicates that higher-ups aren’t dismounting the Trump train just yet. Ultimately, viewers will know that Fox News is really changing when primetime hosts either start criticizing the president or are replaced with hosts who will — and we aren’t anywhere near that point yet.
Winning!!! Not even close....
America's factories just suffered their worst month in a decade
By Anneken Tappe
In the surest sign yet that the trade war is hurting the American economy, manufacturing activity contracted for the second month in a row in September, falling to a level not seen in 10 years.
The Institute of Supply Management's closely-watched manufacturing index dropped to 47.8 in September, its lowest level since June 2009 and worse than what economists had expected.
The index measures month-to-month changes in the industry. A reading above 50 denotes growth in the sector.
"Global trade remains the most significant issue, as demonstrated by the contraction in new export orders that began in July 2019," said Timothy Fiore, chair of the ISM's manufacturing business survey committee.
Making matters worse, the contraction in September was steeper than it was in August, when the sector contracted for the first time in three years because of higher prices that factories pay for materials and weaker global demand.
And the slowdown isn't over.
Companies that make machinery cited softening demand and reduced backlogs, but food, beverage and tobacco producers said Chinese tariffs are hurting their businesses, the ISM survey showed.
The overall index number was bad, but more worrisome is the report's drop in factory orders of exports, said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Deutsche Bank. "There is no end in sight to this slowdown, the recession risk is real," he wrote in a note to clients.
As recession worries resurface, investors wonder whether the Federal Reserve could turn more dovish as the year comes to an end.
The central banks cut interest rates twice this year, in July and again last month, to boost the economy. But at its September meeting the average forecast from policy committee members didn't account for further cuts this year. The softening manufacturing data could change this.
Market expectations for a quarter percentage points interest rate cut in October jumped to 65%, compared to under 40% Monday in the wake of the ISM data, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.
The index's sharp decline also might be related to the General Motors strike, now in its third week, suggested Paul Ashworth, chief economist at Capital Economics.
By Anneken Tappe
In the surest sign yet that the trade war is hurting the American economy, manufacturing activity contracted for the second month in a row in September, falling to a level not seen in 10 years.
The Institute of Supply Management's closely-watched manufacturing index dropped to 47.8 in September, its lowest level since June 2009 and worse than what economists had expected.
The index measures month-to-month changes in the industry. A reading above 50 denotes growth in the sector.
"Global trade remains the most significant issue, as demonstrated by the contraction in new export orders that began in July 2019," said Timothy Fiore, chair of the ISM's manufacturing business survey committee.
Making matters worse, the contraction in September was steeper than it was in August, when the sector contracted for the first time in three years because of higher prices that factories pay for materials and weaker global demand.
And the slowdown isn't over.
Companies that make machinery cited softening demand and reduced backlogs, but food, beverage and tobacco producers said Chinese tariffs are hurting their businesses, the ISM survey showed.
The overall index number was bad, but more worrisome is the report's drop in factory orders of exports, said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Deutsche Bank. "There is no end in sight to this slowdown, the recession risk is real," he wrote in a note to clients.
As recession worries resurface, investors wonder whether the Federal Reserve could turn more dovish as the year comes to an end.
The central banks cut interest rates twice this year, in July and again last month, to boost the economy. But at its September meeting the average forecast from policy committee members didn't account for further cuts this year. The softening manufacturing data could change this.
Market expectations for a quarter percentage points interest rate cut in October jumped to 65%, compared to under 40% Monday in the wake of the ISM data, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.
The index's sharp decline also might be related to the General Motors strike, now in its third week, suggested Paul Ashworth, chief economist at Capital Economics.
Yes... Good call..
The jury deliberated for less than a day
Ashley Killough
A Dallas jury moments ago found former police officer Amber Guyger guilty of murder for fatally shooting her unarmed neighbor, Botham Jean.
The jury deliberated less than 24 hours. The verdict followed a trial that has captured national attention and sparked outrage.
The jury had two questions for the court this morning before they reached the verdict, according to attorneys for the Jean family.
Jurors asked for a definition of manslaughter. They also asked for additional information on the so-called castle doctrine — the legal notion that your home is your castle, and you have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and not retreat.
Ashley Killough
A Dallas jury moments ago found former police officer Amber Guyger guilty of murder for fatally shooting her unarmed neighbor, Botham Jean.
The jury deliberated less than 24 hours. The verdict followed a trial that has captured national attention and sparked outrage.
The jury had two questions for the court this morning before they reached the verdict, according to attorneys for the Jean family.
Jurors asked for a definition of manslaughter. They also asked for additional information on the so-called castle doctrine — the legal notion that your home is your castle, and you have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and not retreat.
No worries....They roll over, pussies....
Australia to Trump: Sure, We’ll Help You Pursue Your Political Vendetta
Trump co-opts more than 100 years of Australian “mateship” for himself—and Australia says “no worries!”
JAMES WEST
Australia rarely makes the US news unless there’s a killer shark attack or a killer leadership coup. But like so many others in the Trump era, this week is not normal.
The New York Times reported Monday afternoon that President Donald Trump pushed Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison “during a recent telephone call” to help prosecute his political vendetta against the people he thinks started the Trump-Russia investigation. That’s a big deal. Trump and other US officials, including Attorney General William Barr, appear to be trying to recruit all sorts of governments (Italy, the UK, and, of course, Ukraine) to do the same—and in some cases, they are covering their tracks by stashing unsavory conversations in a super-classified White House server.
Watchers of the far-right conspiracy machine know Australia plays a special role in sparking Trump’s anger. You might recall it was an Australian official, Alexander Downer, who sort of put this whole thing in motion. During a “night of heavy drinking” with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016, Downer, Australia’s top diplomat in Britain at the time, learned some juicy gossip that the Aussies eventually passed onto the US: Papadopoulos had been told that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of her emails. That bar-chatter, when it reached Washington in July 2016, sparked the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia, which the following year morphed into the Mueller inquiry.
For some time now, Trump-defending conspiracy-mongers have assailed Downer as some kind of Clinton stooge, doing the bidding of dark, anti-Trump forces. That is, Downer, in cahoots with the Deep State, passed along this information to orchestrate the Russia probe in order prevent Trump from becoming president.
For Australians, this is hilarious: Downer is a lifelong soldier of conservative Australia, and happily so. He’s a former foreign minister in Australia’s conservative party, confusingly called the Liberal Party, and once led the party when it was in opposition. The thought of Downer in league with some kind of liberal, global deep state is fantastical enough to be instantly discounted. Nonetheless, in one example of how this disinformation was concocted and spread, The Hill ran a story in March 2018—co-bylined by John Solomon of whistleblower-complaint fame—highlighting Downer’s work to help end the scourge of HIV in the region. This effort, it reported, included awarding taxpayer money to the Clinton Foundation in 2006, and was painted as nefarious. Fox News picked it up. Papadopoulos himself has waged a long Twitter war against Downer:
Twit: George Papadopoulos
"I have been right about Downer from the beginning. A wannabe spy and Clinton errand boy who is about to get exposed on the world stage. Great reporting, NYTs! Mifsud is next."
Now, Trump has come knocking.
Prime Minister Morrison just last week stood in front of the White House beaming as the president lavished him with the pomp and ceremony of a rare official state visit, only the second of Trump’s presidency. Morrison praised the “amity” between the two countries; Trump, the “unwavering friendship.” It was the kind of diplomatic theater any Aussie PM relishes: wall-to-wall coverage back home, with enough red meat to keep Rupert Murdoch happy.
Trump co-opts more than 100 years of Australian “mateship” for himself—and Australia says “no worries!”
JAMES WEST
Australia rarely makes the US news unless there’s a killer shark attack or a killer leadership coup. But like so many others in the Trump era, this week is not normal.
The New York Times reported Monday afternoon that President Donald Trump pushed Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison “during a recent telephone call” to help prosecute his political vendetta against the people he thinks started the Trump-Russia investigation. That’s a big deal. Trump and other US officials, including Attorney General William Barr, appear to be trying to recruit all sorts of governments (Italy, the UK, and, of course, Ukraine) to do the same—and in some cases, they are covering their tracks by stashing unsavory conversations in a super-classified White House server.
Watchers of the far-right conspiracy machine know Australia plays a special role in sparking Trump’s anger. You might recall it was an Australian official, Alexander Downer, who sort of put this whole thing in motion. During a “night of heavy drinking” with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in a London bar in May 2016, Downer, Australia’s top diplomat in Britain at the time, learned some juicy gossip that the Aussies eventually passed onto the US: Papadopoulos had been told that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of her emails. That bar-chatter, when it reached Washington in July 2016, sparked the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia, which the following year morphed into the Mueller inquiry.
For some time now, Trump-defending conspiracy-mongers have assailed Downer as some kind of Clinton stooge, doing the bidding of dark, anti-Trump forces. That is, Downer, in cahoots with the Deep State, passed along this information to orchestrate the Russia probe in order prevent Trump from becoming president.
For Australians, this is hilarious: Downer is a lifelong soldier of conservative Australia, and happily so. He’s a former foreign minister in Australia’s conservative party, confusingly called the Liberal Party, and once led the party when it was in opposition. The thought of Downer in league with some kind of liberal, global deep state is fantastical enough to be instantly discounted. Nonetheless, in one example of how this disinformation was concocted and spread, The Hill ran a story in March 2018—co-bylined by John Solomon of whistleblower-complaint fame—highlighting Downer’s work to help end the scourge of HIV in the region. This effort, it reported, included awarding taxpayer money to the Clinton Foundation in 2006, and was painted as nefarious. Fox News picked it up. Papadopoulos himself has waged a long Twitter war against Downer:
Twit: George Papadopoulos
"I have been right about Downer from the beginning. A wannabe spy and Clinton errand boy who is about to get exposed on the world stage. Great reporting, NYTs! Mifsud is next."
Now, Trump has come knocking.
Prime Minister Morrison just last week stood in front of the White House beaming as the president lavished him with the pomp and ceremony of a rare official state visit, only the second of Trump’s presidency. Morrison praised the “amity” between the two countries; Trump, the “unwavering friendship.” It was the kind of diplomatic theater any Aussie PM relishes: wall-to-wall coverage back home, with enough red meat to keep Rupert Murdoch happy.
Tweets about civil war
Why it's so scary when Trump tweets about civil war
Opinion by Nicole Hemmer
President Donald Trump tweeted and retweeted 80 times between Friday and Sunday, a seemingly panicked flurry of activity that showed just how big a threat the Ukraine scandal and impeachment inquiry are. Among those tweets was a quote from Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress, an evangelical pastor from Texas, who warned that if Trump were successfully removed from office, civil war would follow.
Apocalyptic rhetoric often flows readily from preachers' pulpits and politicians' platforms. Yet this warning of a looming civil war takes on a different meaning when it appears on the President's Twitter feed -- not only because of the office he holds, but because he regularly packages his over-the-top doomsaying with specific calls for political violence. He is a president whose words and actions have helped inspire acts of domestic terrorism, like the mass shooting in El Paso in which 22 people were murdered. In an environment in which people have demonstrated a willingness to turn his words into "war," this is particularly reckless and threatening.
Much of the debate around Trump's tweet has centered on whether he is dog-whistling to violent groups who promote white supremacy or is just being sloppy. The burden of the presidency, though, is that it doesn't really matter. When the President invokes violence -- as in a civil war -- he sends encouragement to supporters already primed to perceive a coming apocalypse.
In the world of white power, where a civil war is a race war, the President's words have particular resonance. White power activists have long embraced a form of violent nationalism (or violent racism cloaked in nationalism), that is always on the lookout for enemies, from Vietnamese immigrants to black churchgoers to, at times, the federal government itself.
The idea of race-war-as-civil-war has a long history within the white power movement, most notably in "The Turner Diaries," a racist 1978 novel that imagines a race war in which white people defend themselves first through terrorism and militia violence, and then through wholesale war. The book helped shape Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh's terrorism, and remains a favorite among the movement and the alt-right, today.
Promoting the possibility of a civil war would be dangerous in any case, but at a time when white-power terrorism has re-emerged as a visible and organized domestic terrorist threat, it is even more irresponsible.
Presidents are not responsible for every act of violence that happens on their watch, even those carried out by their supporters.
But Trump presents us with something different: Over the past four years, Trump has woven calls for political violence into his speeches and tweets time and again. On the campaign trail, he said "Second Amendment People" could take action if his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, got to "pick her judges." He encouraged supporters to "knock the crap" out of protestors, then pledged to pay their legal fees should they get in trouble for assault. He even channeled his own desire to scrap with protestors, chiding his security guards for being too easy on a protestor before adding, "I'd like to punch him in the face."
At a rally a month later, a Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester.
Trump has continued to encourage violence during his presidency, as when he spoke before police officers in 2017 and told them "please don't be too nice" to the "thugs" they arrest.
Trump's exhortations to violence are not new, but they are almost certain to increase in the weeks and months ahead as the impeachment inquiry advances. Painted into a corner, his presidency under threat, Donald Trump will do what he has done in the past: double-down on appeals to his base and attacks on his enemies. And since those attacks are targeted and specific, they are especially dangerous.
In recent days, he has appeared obsessed with treason and spying. He charged the whistleblower in the Ukraine case with both, and Monday morning, suggested that Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, should be arrested for treason.
That is not a neutral statement coming from the President of the United States. It is alarming on its own, given the seriousness of a treason charge. But it also does not exist in a bubble. Last week at a private event, Trump intimated that anyone who shared information with the whistleblower was a treasonous spy and alluded darkly to consequences: "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now."
We used to execute them.
President Trump may not explicitly be calling for the murder of his political enemies, but he has stepped right up to the line.
Calling for political violence is reason enough to remove Trump from office, though it's unlikely to appear in articles of impeachment. It is, in fact, why the impeachment inquiry is so serious, and why Congress must approach it with real focus and care: as the danger to his presidency grows, Trump will escalate his rhetoric, making America less safe every day he remains in office.
Opinion by Nicole Hemmer
President Donald Trump tweeted and retweeted 80 times between Friday and Sunday, a seemingly panicked flurry of activity that showed just how big a threat the Ukraine scandal and impeachment inquiry are. Among those tweets was a quote from Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress, an evangelical pastor from Texas, who warned that if Trump were successfully removed from office, civil war would follow.
Apocalyptic rhetoric often flows readily from preachers' pulpits and politicians' platforms. Yet this warning of a looming civil war takes on a different meaning when it appears on the President's Twitter feed -- not only because of the office he holds, but because he regularly packages his over-the-top doomsaying with specific calls for political violence. He is a president whose words and actions have helped inspire acts of domestic terrorism, like the mass shooting in El Paso in which 22 people were murdered. In an environment in which people have demonstrated a willingness to turn his words into "war," this is particularly reckless and threatening.
Much of the debate around Trump's tweet has centered on whether he is dog-whistling to violent groups who promote white supremacy or is just being sloppy. The burden of the presidency, though, is that it doesn't really matter. When the President invokes violence -- as in a civil war -- he sends encouragement to supporters already primed to perceive a coming apocalypse.
In the world of white power, where a civil war is a race war, the President's words have particular resonance. White power activists have long embraced a form of violent nationalism (or violent racism cloaked in nationalism), that is always on the lookout for enemies, from Vietnamese immigrants to black churchgoers to, at times, the federal government itself.
The idea of race-war-as-civil-war has a long history within the white power movement, most notably in "The Turner Diaries," a racist 1978 novel that imagines a race war in which white people defend themselves first through terrorism and militia violence, and then through wholesale war. The book helped shape Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh's terrorism, and remains a favorite among the movement and the alt-right, today.
Promoting the possibility of a civil war would be dangerous in any case, but at a time when white-power terrorism has re-emerged as a visible and organized domestic terrorist threat, it is even more irresponsible.
Presidents are not responsible for every act of violence that happens on their watch, even those carried out by their supporters.
But Trump presents us with something different: Over the past four years, Trump has woven calls for political violence into his speeches and tweets time and again. On the campaign trail, he said "Second Amendment People" could take action if his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, got to "pick her judges." He encouraged supporters to "knock the crap" out of protestors, then pledged to pay their legal fees should they get in trouble for assault. He even channeled his own desire to scrap with protestors, chiding his security guards for being too easy on a protestor before adding, "I'd like to punch him in the face."
At a rally a month later, a Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester.
Trump has continued to encourage violence during his presidency, as when he spoke before police officers in 2017 and told them "please don't be too nice" to the "thugs" they arrest.
Trump's exhortations to violence are not new, but they are almost certain to increase in the weeks and months ahead as the impeachment inquiry advances. Painted into a corner, his presidency under threat, Donald Trump will do what he has done in the past: double-down on appeals to his base and attacks on his enemies. And since those attacks are targeted and specific, they are especially dangerous.
In recent days, he has appeared obsessed with treason and spying. He charged the whistleblower in the Ukraine case with both, and Monday morning, suggested that Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, should be arrested for treason.
That is not a neutral statement coming from the President of the United States. It is alarming on its own, given the seriousness of a treason charge. But it also does not exist in a bubble. Last week at a private event, Trump intimated that anyone who shared information with the whistleblower was a treasonous spy and alluded darkly to consequences: "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now."
We used to execute them.
President Trump may not explicitly be calling for the murder of his political enemies, but he has stepped right up to the line.
Calling for political violence is reason enough to remove Trump from office, though it's unlikely to appear in articles of impeachment. It is, in fact, why the impeachment inquiry is so serious, and why Congress must approach it with real focus and care: as the danger to his presidency grows, Trump will escalate his rhetoric, making America less safe every day he remains in office.
Body Blows....
The blows keep coming for Trump as he struggles with impeachment defense
Analysis by Stephen Collinson
Democrats aimed a fresh dagger at Donald Trump's inner circle by subpoenaing documents from his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as the President struggled to parry an aggressive impeachment gambit on a day of rapid developments.
The President seems to be reeling, waiting for the next blow to fall, defended only by his increasingly unhinged tirades, his tweets quoting supporters on cable news and confrontational and conspiracy-laden appearances by aides on TV.
The President's unaccustomed struggle to control the narrative and to get his opponents to respond to his moves bodes ill for any hopes he has of avoiding a full House impeachment vote.
There is no sign of the organized, disciplined political and legal strategy that for instance helped Bill Clinton emerge from his impeachment trial as a viable President.
For days now, Trump has been unable to slow the momentum of Democrats as they investigate whether he abused his power by trying to pressure Ukraine to dig for dirt on potential 2020 foe Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
CNN reported Monday that Trump loyalists had warned him that he would almost certainly be impeached and that some doubted whether he really understood the magnitude of his plight.
Digging himself in deeper, Trump warned Monday he was trying to find out the name of the official who blew the whistle on his call and dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's comment could be a potential violation of laws meant to protect truth tellers and could play into any eventual charges by Democrats that he is seeking to obstruct their investigation.
The whistleblower's lawyers have already raised concern for their client's safety, as Democrats try to persuade the unnamed official to tell the story that sparked their complaint on Capitol Hill.
In tweets and remarks that seemed increasingly panic-stricken, Trump fulminated at Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence chairman who has been made the initial face of the impeachment inquiry by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
He seized on a supporter's comment on Fox News that he feared a "Civil-War like" fracture in the country and called for Schiff to be investigated for treason. He also took aim at his accuser.
"The whistleblower reported a totally different statement," Trump said at the White House. "I made a call. The call was perfect. When the whistleblower reported it, he made it sound terrible."
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, however, told lawmakers last week that the whistleblower's complaint was credible and that he or she acted lawfully and in good faith.
While there are so far few signs of a collapse in support among GOP lawmakers for Trump, shifting poll numbers so far suggest the President and not the Democrats face the biggest risks in the impeachment showdown.
A new CNN/SSRS poll shows that Americans are roughly split on whether the President should be impeached. But in a worrying sign for Trump, support for impeachment and removal rose 11 points to 46% among independents.
Trump's control over the Republican Party -- an insurance blanket in case of a Senate impeachment trial -- has been rooted in high levels of support among conservative base voters.
The President reflected that strength by tweeting out an electoral map Tuesday overlaid with the words "Try to impeach this." The graphic was overwhelmingly red given the dominance of Republicans in rural territory outside major cities.
Support among Republican voters for impeachment and removal edged up to 14% in the CNN poll. But 80% of Republican respondents remained opposed. And performance on the electoral map may not offer historic protection against impeachment. President Richard Nixon won in a landslide of 49 states in 1972 but two years later had to resign to avoid being impeached and removed.
A day of fast moving developments
Giuliani warned of serious consequences
The House committee chairmen warned Giuliani that a refusal to comply would trigger serious consequences.
"Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the direction or behest of the President or the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President," the chairmen wrote in a joint letter to the former New York mayor.
Giuliani could seek to shield himself behind attorney-client privilege and the White House could potentially try to invoke executive privilege given its past such expansive claims.
But it is not clear how such claims would hold up in court -- since Giuliani has spilled plenty of detail about his dealings with Ukraine in freewheeling media appearances that may constitute a waiving of privileges.
"I don't see what the privilege is here that prevents him from providing information that is lawfully and appropriately subpoenaed by these three different committees," said Preet Bharara, a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by Trump.
"Rudy Giuliani and others in support of the President have gone on television day after day after day saying as the thrust of their argument here that the whistleblower relies on hearsay information, second hand information," said Bharara, who is now a senior CNN legal analyst.
Bharara told CNN's Erica Hill that Giuliani was "thereby begging people to do exactly what has been done here -- to get direct information and direct evidence."
Analysis by Stephen Collinson
Democrats aimed a fresh dagger at Donald Trump's inner circle by subpoenaing documents from his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as the President struggled to parry an aggressive impeachment gambit on a day of rapid developments.
The President seems to be reeling, waiting for the next blow to fall, defended only by his increasingly unhinged tirades, his tweets quoting supporters on cable news and confrontational and conspiracy-laden appearances by aides on TV.
The President's unaccustomed struggle to control the narrative and to get his opponents to respond to his moves bodes ill for any hopes he has of avoiding a full House impeachment vote.
There is no sign of the organized, disciplined political and legal strategy that for instance helped Bill Clinton emerge from his impeachment trial as a viable President.
For days now, Trump has been unable to slow the momentum of Democrats as they investigate whether he abused his power by trying to pressure Ukraine to dig for dirt on potential 2020 foe Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
CNN reported Monday that Trump loyalists had warned him that he would almost certainly be impeached and that some doubted whether he really understood the magnitude of his plight.
Digging himself in deeper, Trump warned Monday he was trying to find out the name of the official who blew the whistle on his call and dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's comment could be a potential violation of laws meant to protect truth tellers and could play into any eventual charges by Democrats that he is seeking to obstruct their investigation.
The whistleblower's lawyers have already raised concern for their client's safety, as Democrats try to persuade the unnamed official to tell the story that sparked their complaint on Capitol Hill.
In tweets and remarks that seemed increasingly panic-stricken, Trump fulminated at Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence chairman who has been made the initial face of the impeachment inquiry by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
He seized on a supporter's comment on Fox News that he feared a "Civil-War like" fracture in the country and called for Schiff to be investigated for treason. He also took aim at his accuser.
"The whistleblower reported a totally different statement," Trump said at the White House. "I made a call. The call was perfect. When the whistleblower reported it, he made it sound terrible."
Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, however, told lawmakers last week that the whistleblower's complaint was credible and that he or she acted lawfully and in good faith.
While there are so far few signs of a collapse in support among GOP lawmakers for Trump, shifting poll numbers so far suggest the President and not the Democrats face the biggest risks in the impeachment showdown.
A new CNN/SSRS poll shows that Americans are roughly split on whether the President should be impeached. But in a worrying sign for Trump, support for impeachment and removal rose 11 points to 46% among independents.
Trump's control over the Republican Party -- an insurance blanket in case of a Senate impeachment trial -- has been rooted in high levels of support among conservative base voters.
The President reflected that strength by tweeting out an electoral map Tuesday overlaid with the words "Try to impeach this." The graphic was overwhelmingly red given the dominance of Republicans in rural territory outside major cities.
Support among Republican voters for impeachment and removal edged up to 14% in the CNN poll. But 80% of Republican respondents remained opposed. And performance on the electoral map may not offer historic protection against impeachment. President Richard Nixon won in a landslide of 49 states in 1972 but two years later had to resign to avoid being impeached and removed.
A day of fast moving developments
- Each day since the Ukraine story broke open last week has unfolded in volleys of breaking news stories and head snapping developments that have created a sense of siege around the White House. The pace heated up another few notches on Monday.
- Giuliani was dragged directly and inevitably into the Democratic impeachment machine after he was ordered to produce documents relevant to Ukraine by three House committees.
- In a statement, a Trump-appointed intelligence community inspector general rejected the central plank of the President's case that the whistleblower was relying on hearsay.
- The inspector general said the person had "official and authorized access to the information and sources" referenced in his complaint, direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct and subject matter expertise.
- Another key Trump lieutenant, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is getting sucked in to the drama, after it emerged that he was on the now notorious July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. It seems a matter of time before the secretary of state is called to testify.
- In a related development, CNN reported Trump personally urged Australia's Prime Minister to help investigate the decisions that led the FBI to open its Russia inquiry involving his 2016 campaign, an official familiar with the conversation told CNN. Trump leaned on Scott Morrison at the suggestion of Attorney General William Barr, who is being drawn further into Democratic sights as they probe the administration's alleged abuse of power. The White House countered that Trump merely asked for introductions so officials could pursue an already announced Justice Department inquiry.
- CNN's Jamie Gangel reported that Trump was often unprepared for such calls with foreign leaders, and officials needed to "babysit" the President, who sometimes said embarrassing and inappropriate things to his counterparts.
- GOP Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said on CNBC that he would have no choice but to convene a Senate trial to determine Trump's fate if he was impeached by the House. The comment shot down Washington scuttlebutt that McConnell might simply ignore a House impeachment vote.
Giuliani warned of serious consequences
The House committee chairmen warned Giuliani that a refusal to comply would trigger serious consequences.
"Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the direction or behest of the President or the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President," the chairmen wrote in a joint letter to the former New York mayor.
Giuliani could seek to shield himself behind attorney-client privilege and the White House could potentially try to invoke executive privilege given its past such expansive claims.
But it is not clear how such claims would hold up in court -- since Giuliani has spilled plenty of detail about his dealings with Ukraine in freewheeling media appearances that may constitute a waiving of privileges.
"I don't see what the privilege is here that prevents him from providing information that is lawfully and appropriately subpoenaed by these three different committees," said Preet Bharara, a former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was fired by Trump.
"Rudy Giuliani and others in support of the President have gone on television day after day after day saying as the thrust of their argument here that the whistleblower relies on hearsay information, second hand information," said Bharara, who is now a senior CNN legal analyst.
Bharara told CNN's Erica Hill that Giuliani was "thereby begging people to do exactly what has been done here -- to get direct information and direct evidence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)