Amazon has threatened to move jobs out of its hometown of Seattle after the city council introduced a new tax to try to address the homelessness crisis.The world’s second-biggest company has warned that the “hostile” tax, which will charge firms $275 per worker a year to fund homelessness outreach services and affordable housing, “forces us to question our growth here”.Amazon, which is Seattle’s biggest private sector employer with more than 40,000 staff in the city, had halted construction work on a 17-storey office tower in protest against the tax. Pressure from Amazon and other big employers, including Starbucks and Expedia, had forced councillors to reduce the tax from an initial proposal of $500 per worker. The tax will only effect companies making revenue of more than $20m-a-year. The tax is expected to raise between $45m and $49m a year, of which about $10m would come from Amazon.The company said it would restart building work on the tower but may sublease another new office block to reduce its tax bill. “We are disappointed by today’s city Council decision to introduce a tax on jobs,” said Drew Herdener, an Amazon vice-president. We remain very apprehensive about the future created by the council’s hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses, which forces us to question our growth here.”Amazon’s chief executive, Jeff Bezos, is the world’s richest man with a $133bn fortune.Campaigners said the company should be forced to take financial responsibility for Seattle’s cost of living, which has forced many families on to the streets. There are almost 12,000 homeless people in Seattle region, equating to the third-highest rate per capita in the US. Last year 169 homeless people died in Seattle. The city declared a state of emergency because of homelessness in late 2015Before the council vote on Monday, more than 100 people marched through Amazon’s campus and held a rally outside the company’s new spherical greenhouses, some holding signs saying “Tax Amazon”.Seattle councillor Teresa Mosqueda said: “People are dying on the doorsteps of prosperity. This is the richest city in the state and in a state that has the most regressive tax system in the country.” The vote was passed unanimously, with several council members saying they were voting reluctantly in favour of the lower rate for the tax after Seattle’s mayor, Jenny Durkan, threatened to veto a higher rate.“This was a tough debate. Not just here at city hall, but all across this city,” Durkan, said. “No one is saying that this will solve everything, but it will make a meaningful difference. This legislation will help us address our homelessness crisis without jeopardising critical jobs.”Politicians from 50 other US cities wrote an open letter to Seattle council in a show solidarity with the councillors attempt to tackle Amazon’s impact on the city. “By threatening Seattle over this tax, Amazon is sending a message to all of our cities: we play by our own rules,” the letter said.Starbucks had also fought against the tax, with its public affairs chief, John Kelly, accusing the city of continuing to “spend without reforming and fail without accountability, while ignoring the plight of hundreds of children sleeping outside”.He added: “If they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a five-year-old child, no one believes they will be able to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction.”Marilyn Strickland, the head of Seattle’s chamber of commerce, voiced business leaders’ opposition to the tax. “Taxing jobs will not fix our region’s housing and homelessness problems,” she said.

The looming threat of President TrumpDonald John TrumpWhitmer responds to Atlas: I won't 'be bullied into not following reputable scientists' Obama: US 'adversaries have seen us weakened' Obama describes wife Michelle's resistance to presidential ambitions MORE's impeachment is adding another flashpoint to an uncertain economic outlook for the U.S.Trump's trade battles, impending recessions across Europe, and rising tensions in the Middle East have taken a toll on the slowing U.S. economy.The U.S. has held steady even as job and economic growth have faded throughout 2019, threatening an unemployment rate near record lows. Consumer confidence and spending have also declined through the summer, due in part to a sharp escalation in the U.S.-China trade war.With trouble on the horizon, Trump has warned of economic ruin if Democrats proceed with impeachment, even after spending months downplaying the threat of a recession.“If they actually did this the markets would crash,” Trump tweeted Thursday, a day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the Democratic caucus would begin an impeachment inquiry. “Do you think it was luck that got us to the best Stock Market and Economy in our history. It wasn’t!”While Trump has claimed that his impeachment would bring economic ruin and financial panic, economists say it would take a political catastrophe to spur that level of chaos. But they also warn that the political storm poses serious threats to an economy already vulnerable to major shocks.“There’s no upside,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The question is, how big a downside will it be?”The fate of Trump’s reelection campaign is closely tied to the strength of the U.S. economy, which has long been his most effective pitch to swing voters. Despite his unpopularity in polls, Trump’s approval on the economy had stayed positive until a recent stretch of disappointing economic data. Job growth has slowed from an average monthly gain of 223,000 workers in 2018 to 158,000 workers this year. A boom in consumer spending that helped propel the economy has started to fade, increasing by a meager 0.1 percent in August. And steady declines in business investment and manufacturing activity have deepened concerns about the long-term outlook for the U.S.Trump has scrambled to stave off a downturn with an aggressive push to advance his trade agenda before the 2020 election. The president is counting on better trading terms with Canada, Mexico, China and Europe to boost the economy and his popularity during his difficult reelection bid. But to do so, Trump must find a way out of his trade war with China and lift its immense costs off the back of the U.S. economy. After weeks of staff-level discussions, trade talks between senior U.S. and Chinese officials are set to take place between Oct. 9 and 10, according to CNBC. The meeting is set to occur just days before tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods increase to 30 percent from 25 percent, giving negotiators a small window to strike a truce.Trump has remained defiant even as his leverage with China appears to fade, and the pressure of impeachment may prompt him to take a tougher stance. Stephen Myrow, managing partner at Beacon Policy Advisors, also pointed to an impending round of tariffs on European products.“If his impeachment is perceived as making him look weak, and he wants to look strong,” Myrow said, “lashing out at the EU — which is what he was going to do anyway, is a way to portray strength.”The impeachment inquiry also threatens the prospects for Trump's new North American trade deal, the U.S., Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA). Trump will need the support of House Democrats to pass the deal, even as the caucus seeks to impeach him.Democrats have expressed optimism about reaching an agreement with the White House on USMCA despite impeachment proceedings. But Trump and Republicans have expressed worries that the impeachment fight could scuttle the deal.Trump on Wednesday said he did not know if Pelosi would have time to bring up USMCA.“I don’t know whether or not they’re going to have time to do any deals," he said. "I don’t know that they’re ever going to get a vote because they’re all fighting."Both parties have been locked in intense yet productive talks to satisfy Democratic demands for stronger labor, environmental and pharmaceutical standards. Some observers have even suggested that Democrats could flock to USMCA, proving to voters that they can still legislate while they impeach.Larry KudlowLarry KudlowMORE, the president’s top economic adviser, also floated the theory in a Thursday interview with Fox Business Network. “If they’re going to go off the ledge on some crazy idea of impeachment — which is doomed to failure — they might even be more inclined to do something constructive on the [USMCA]” Kudlow said. A group of House Democrats leading USMCA negotiations gave Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, their latest counter-offer Friday, shortly after the caucus quashed a resolution to condemn Trump’s impeachment.Despite the signs of progress, some experts remain unconvinced that the White House and Democrats can move past their policy differences and the political tensions threatening the deal.“It's hard to see Pelosi and the White House striking some deal over the next few months while it is very likely that she’s leading the Democrats to draft and vote in favor of articles of impeachment,” Myrow said.“I find it hard to believe that she was going to give a win to Trump on one of his top items without getting something in return,” he continued. “She's gonna want something that makes it look like a big win for the Democrats, and Trump isn't going to give it up.”

ASSOCIATED PRESS Marlin and Dory with Bruce the shark in scene from movie "Finding Nemo." President Donald Trump was so upset by a confrontation over impeachment on “Fox & Friends” that he retweeted nearly two dozen messages about it — including one bizarrely ripping the “Pro Shark Media.” In his haste to churn out attacks, Trump apparently hadn’t realized he was retweeting a message from the “Trump But About Sharks” bot account. The account inserts shark terms into his tweets to mock Trump’s hatred of sharks. “Trump apparently hates sharks, so this bot does some word replacement on his tweets to make them about sharks,” the account explains. Screen Shot/Twitter/@RealDonaldTrump Screen shot of Trump's retweet of message attacking "pro shark media" No wonder Trump hates the “pro shark media.” In a 2013 tweet, he classified sharks with the “losers and the haters of the World!” Trump got triggered Sunday after conservative talk radio host Mark Levin exploded when Fox News reporter Ed Henry pressed Levin if it was “okay” for Trump to ask the Ukrainian president in a July phone call “to dig up dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. The call has become the focus of a formal House impeachment inquiry. “What happened in the Oval Office on that call, was it illegal or not?” Henry asked Levin. pic.twitter.com/vuFsgolfVO— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2019 Trump posted a clip of the confrontation on Fox — and retweeted multiple attacks on Henry and praise for Levin. But many Twitter followers enjoyed the president’s retweet about the pro-shark media. I can’t believe Trump retweeted this bot account about turning his tweets into stuff about sharks without even noticing the unflattering profile picture. pic.twitter.com/d8o4dMRGrq— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) September 29, 2019 Trump retweeted this account? Wtf— Milquetoast (@BlueRobotDesign) September 29, 2019 #sharks pic.twitter.com/pHexJ1R174— Ismaël Mankupranata (@Ismael_Manku) September 29, 2019 This account is making fun of him and he RT’d it. 😂😂😂— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) September 29, 2019 THIS IS AWESOME!!He actually RETWEETED you!!BRAVO!!You're my new HERO of the day!!And you just got A new follower!#TrumpCrimeFamily#ImpeachTheMF#sharks#TrumpUkraineScandal— ❄Kelly🌵🌹Rose❄ (@KellyRose4444) September 29, 2019 #TrumpIsSoDumb that...well see for yourself pic.twitter.com/U0sq2e1KDe— Alienation (@Alienation2020) September 29, 2019 Infrastructure week has been cancelled in favor of SHARK WEEK!! Yay!— WWCBD? (WhatWouldChuckBrownDo?) (@donna_gardner) September 29, 2019 How is it possible this is still up?How could you not tell from the photo or the handle that this is a parody? How?— MAS Part-time Princess of Sharpie Alabama (@OopsOFacto) September 29, 2019 😂😂😂 Make sharks great again!— trilogyxthree 🌊 (@Blackfog19) September 29, 2019 Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado, returned a superseding indictment charging six additional defendants for their roles in a previously indicted conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products, and containing additional allegations against the previously charged defendants in the same conspiracy, the Department of Justice announced today. The superseding indictment also charges one defendant with making false statements and obstruction of justice. “The division will not tolerate collusion that inflates prices American shoppers and diners pay for food,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Executives who choose collusion over competition will be held to account for schemes that cheat consumers and corrupt our competitive markets. The division will also continue to charge those who knowingly lie to our law enforcement partners and obstruct our investigations — such conduct undermines our criminal justice system and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”“The charges in this ongoing investigation show the commitment of the FBI and our partners to work together to uncover these crimes and hold these individuals responsible,” said James A. Dawson, Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. “To date, there have been 10 individuals charged for their participation in this conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids. The American people and restaurant owners should not be the ones to pay unnecessary rising costs of food while executives and employees line their pockets.”“We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners and the Department of Justice to root out corruption that harms consumers and the competitive market,” said Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Scott Kieffer of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General. “The superseding indictment should serve as a deterrent to those who might contemplate similar criminal actions.”“We appreciate the ongoing commitment and concerted efforts of our law enforcement partners at the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General to investigate a long-running scheme affecting competition through the rigging of bids and price fixing of broiler chicken products,” said Special Agent-in-Charge Bethanne M. Dinkins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General. “During these uncertain times, USDA, OIG will continue to dedicate resources and prioritize work that benefits hard working Americans through competitive prices for agricultural producers and fairness in pricing and quality of agricultural products for consumers.” The three-count superseding indictment charges 10 executives and employees at major broiler chicken producers for their participation in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products from at least 2012 until at least early 2019. Broiler chickens are raised for human consumption and sold to grocers and restaurants. The six additional defendants are Timothy Mulrenin, William Kantola, Jimmie Little, William Lovette, Gary Roberts, and Rickie Blake. Mulrenin was a sales executive at a chicken supplier headquartered in Maryland and a sales executive at a chicken supplier headquartered in Arkansas. Kantola was a sales executive at a chicken supplier headquartered in Illinois. Little was a sales director at a chicken supplier headquartered in Colorado. Lovette was President and Chief Executive Officer at a chicken supplier headquartered in Colorado. Roberts was an employee at a chicken supplier headquartered in North Carolina and a manager and director at a chicken supplier headquartered in Arkansas. Blake was a director and manager at a chicken supplier headquartered in Arkansas. The previously indicted defendants who were co-conspirators in the same conspiracy and remain charged in the superseding indictment are Jayson Penn, Roger Austin, Mikell Fries, and Scott Brady. All 10 individuals charged were executives or employees of several different companies that supply broiler chicken products in the United States. Finally, defendant Little is charged with one count of making false statements to federal law enforcement agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and one count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The investigation remains ongoing. An indictment merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The Sherman Act offense charged carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by victims if either amount is greater than $1 million. The false statements offense charged carries a statutory maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. The obstruction of justice offense charged carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.This case is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the broiler chicken industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington Field Office, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General. Anyone with information on price fixing, bid rigging, or other anticompetitive conduct related to the broiler chicken industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html.

Saturday Night Live returned for its 45th season by once again poking fun at the 45th president of the United States. This time, Alec Baldwin’s President Donald Trump was desperately phoning friends, foreign leaders, and celebrity allies to solicit their help in fighting a newly opened impeachment inquiry. A week of political turmoil led to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcing her support for an impeachment inquiry, following a whistleblower complaint that alleged Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate a potential political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. SNL seized the opportunity provided by the situation, with Baldwin returning to headline, despite having said he planned to retire his Trump parody.The cold open begins with Baldwin using one of Trump’s catchphrases — presidential harassment — to complain about the impeachment process. “It’s the greatest presidential harassment of all time,” he says. “I should know. I’m like the president of harassment.” The show was not subtle in mocking key administration figures and made fun of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — portrayed by Kate McKinnon — for sharing sensitive, personal information on live television (Thursday, Giuliani read text messages from Kurt Volker, the State Department’s former special envoy for Ukraine, on Fox News). When McKinnon’s Giuliani receives a concerned call from Baldwin’s Trump, the character assures him that none of their wrongdoings will become public — while he is filming an appearance on CNN. “Nobody’s going to find out about our illegal side dealings with the Ukraine,” McKinnon’s Giuliani says. “Or how we tried to cover up those side dealings. Or how we planned to cover up the cover-up.”Baldwin then calls a string of his other administration members and family: Aidy Bryant’s Attorney General William Barr; Beck Bennett’s Vice President Mike Pence; and Alex Moffat and Mikey Day’s Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Baldwin’s Trump, however, has little success in finding a solution to his impeachment, with Barr summing up the response to the president’s entreaties: “Where are you going to find a sacrificial patsy that’ll do anything you say? Not it.”As Trump begins to panic, Kim Jong-Un swoops in to give some advice on how to handle whistleblowers. Played by the show’s first East Asian cast member Bowen Yang, Kim tells Trump the solution is simple: “You have a big ocean in your country? Send whistleblower to the bottom of there.”Baldwin attempts a few more unsuccessful phone calls — with Kanye West, played by Chris Redd, and Don King, played by Kenan Thompson, telling the president they’re withdrawing their support — before he hears from Cecily Strong’s Jeanine Pirro, who cheers him up by referring to him as her “special, beautiful boy” and by telling him how handsome he is.At last out of options, the skit sees Trump deciding to call an expert. He reaches out to actor Liev Schreiber, who, playing himself, explains that the fixer he portrays on Ray Donovan is a fictional character. To that, Baldwin simply responds: “If you can’t do it, can you connect me with John Wick?”The House Intelligence Committee released the whistleblower complaint minutes before Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire began his testimony before Congress.Looking for a quick way to keep up with the never-ending news cycle? Host Sean Rameswaram will guide you through the most important stories at the end of each day.Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Will you help keep Vox free for all? Millions of people rely on Vox to understand how the policy decisions made in Washington, from health care to unemployment to housing, could impact their lives. Our work is well-sourced, research-driven, and in-depth. And that kind of work takes resources. Even after the economy recovers, advertising alone will never be enough to support it. If you have already made a contribution to Vox, thank you. If you haven’t, help us keep our journalism free for everyone by making a financial contribution today, from as little as $3.

The Mueller investigation ended a year and a half ago, but the aftershocks never stopped. A passel of books highlight the omissions and missteps of the special counsel’s office. The Senate intelligence committee report fills in some of the gaps on Russian interference in the 2016 election.Although Robert Mueller found no basis for conspiracy charges, collusion remains a partisan buzzword, obstruction of justice a live concern. The harshest criticism leveled at Mueller is that he blinked.Specifically, the special counsel failed to issue a grand jury subpoena to Donald Trump, needlessly ceding the advantage to the White House. Then, his report went silent on whether grounds existed for charging the president with obstruction of justice, despite analysis that revealed such grounds. The weight of the presidency and fear of its occupant triumphed.“Had we used all available tools to uncover the truth, undeterred by the onslaught of the president’s unique powers to undermine our efforts?” asks Andrew Weissmann. “I know the hard answer to that simple question: we could have done more.”That makes Where Law Ends unique among Trump-themed books. The author was a member of Mueller’s team, supervisor of the prosecution of Paul Manafort. He is both admiring and critical of his former boss, which lends credibility and originality. Pathos is part of the package too.Weissman is a former federal prosecutor whose career intersected with Mueller’s, FBI general counsel when Mueller was director. Before the FBI, Weissmann had a reputation for zealousness. In the Enron case, he successfully prosecuted Arthur Andersen, only to see the supreme court overturn the conviction and to watch the accounting firm close.As a younger government lawyer, Weissmann prosecuted Felix Sater. In 2015, according to the Mueller Report, Sater explored the “possibility of a Trump Tower project in Moscow while working with the Trump Organization”.Under an apt subtitle, “Inside the Mueller Investigation”, Weissmann offers a detailed look at why the special counsel reached the conclusions he did, and expands on how Bill Barr ambushed Mueller with his four-page summary of a 400-plus-page report.“We had just been played by the attorney general,” Weissmann writes.Weissman expresses anger toward Barr but points the finger at Mueller: “Part of the reason the president and his enablers were able to spin the report was that we had left the playing field open for them to do so.”He is convinced of the substantive basis of an obstruction claim, even if justice department guidelines precluded the indictment of a sitting president. The “facts of the [James] Comey firing appeared to satisfy all the elements of … obstruction of justice”, Weissmann writes. “There was simply no other credible conclusion one could reach.”Where Law Ends also worries about the future of the US body politic.“I now know that the death of our democracy is possible,” Weissmann writes. “Fixing it is possible too.”That is the book’s last line. Weissmann’s rhetoric is hot – but not overblown.Trump has publicly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. Take him literally and seriously, especially when polls show Biden up in Ohio, with Iowa and Georgia close.“We’re going to have to see what happens, you know that” is one for the ages. Whether it is a historic blip or a harbinger remains to be determined.Where Law Ends is also a guide to how the Mueller investigation divvied up its work. Sections on the case of Michael Cohen are particularly instructive. Trump’s fixer was charged by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York – a strategic decision.Weissmann explains that the investigation of potential campaign finance violations fell outside Mueller’s purview. He could have sought permission to charge Cohen from Rod Rosenstein, then deputy attorney general. Or he could hand the case to SDNY, where in Weissmann’s words, “prosecutors have free rein to examine all potential federal crimes”.Contrary to the hype surrounding the early days of the Mueller investigation, this was no “dream team”. In Weissmann’s telling, senior members did not possess supervisory experience, and in one instance a lawyer was hired simply because he had been a supreme court clerk. Those looking to work for Mueller were prone to both cockiness and hand-wringing, traits Mueller himself found distasteful.At one point, Mueller turned to Jeannie Rhee, a veteran prosecutor, and said she embodied the “pizazz” he wanted, but which appeared lacking in the applicant pool. Rhee, Weissmann writes, possessed “a kind of can-do, combustible energy” which is always in high demand and short supply.Weissmann upbraids Aaron Zebley, another Mueller deputy, for being overly cautious. Weissmann and Rhee concluded that the broad issue of Russian election interference was within their purview. For Zebley, the focus was limited to possible “links and coordination” between Russia and the Trump campaign.Weissmann hearkens back to the generals who served Abraham Lincoln, comparing Zebley to the “timorous” George McClellan, reluctant to fight the Confederates, and presenting himself and Rhee as approximations of Philip Sheridan and Ulysses S Grant. Sheridan helped defeat Robert E Lee at Appomattox Courthouse. Grant, who accepted Lee’s surrender, would be elected president.Perhaps Weissmann overstates. William Barnett, the FBI agent assigned to the case, contends that the lawyers, not his bureau’s investigators, drove most of the decisions. In a recent filing by the government in the Michael Flynn case, Barnett also says the special counsel’s office was both permeated by groupthink and out to “get” the president. Either way, Where Law Ends is a dispiriting work. It is not simply about the Mueller investigation, or Trump. It is also an examination of where America stands.Weissmann contrasts Trump’s inauguration with protest marches held the day after, and observes the country’s changing demographics. Mindful of history, he ponders whether the civil war ever ended. Looking at the coming election, that is an open question. America’s fissures are once again on display. Topics Robert Mueller Trump-Russia investigation Donald Trump Trump administration US politics US elections 2020 Politics books reviews

ImageA listing for a home owned by Paul Manafort's family at 377 Union Street in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.Credit...Travis MarkAn 1890s Brooklyn brownstone with gilded details. A Soho loft with picture windows. A Lower Manhattan apartment with an automated garage. A house in the Hamptons with a pool, tennis and basketball courts — even a chipping green. When Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors last month, he agreed to forfeit New York real estate worth about $22 million to the government. It’s a list of resplendent homes, some purchased with ill-gotten gains, prosecutors said. And one day, they may all be for sale. They might even go cheap. “The government, they don’t like to wait years for the best price, they want to move it,” said David B. Smith, a former deputy chief of the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture office. “With a unique property, that may be stupid, but they want to do it.”The United States Marshal’s Service will hire local brokers to sell off the properties, proceeds of which will go to Uncle Sam — after, that is, all debts are paid. (Mr. Manafort and his family borrowed heavily against the properties.)It is too soon to know when the properties may come to market because formal forfeiture proceedings have not yet begun. But here’s a sneak peek:Manhattan: 123 Baxter Street, Apartment 5D ImageThe loft apartment is in a building with the first ever robotic garage, which puts your car away for you.Mr. Manafort’s daughter, Andrea, using money from her father’s holding company, purchased this three-bedroom apartment in 2007 for just over $2.5 million. The property is attached to New York City’s first automated parking garage, where a robotic attendant puts away your car.Apartments there are still a good deal because the building is on the border of Chinatown and Little Italy, said Ari Harkov, a broker with Halstead, who has sold two other units in the building. The price per square foot of comparable apartments in the area, he said, is significantly less than similar apartments just a few blocks north in Soho.Still, Mr. Harkov said some liberal-leaning clients are unwilling to buy apartments linked to Mr. Trump — including 184 Kent in Brooklyn, which is owned by his son-in-law, the developer Jared Kushner. That could affect the price, he said.“I have had people who will say no to that building because they don’t want to line his pockets,” Mr. Harkov said. Manhattan: 29 Howard Street, 4th Floor ImageThe apartment has an open floor plan and there are unobstructed views down Crosby Street.This Soho apartment has a wood-burning fireplace, more than 2,000 square feet of open loft space, a steam shower and a soaking tub — not to mention an elevator that opens directly into the home. It cost Mr. Manafort $2.85 million in 2012, money funneled through a shell company to hide income from lobbying work on behalf of pro-Russian political factions in Ukraine, according to the indictment. But wait, there’s more.“The view is ridiculous,” said Meris Blumstein, a broker with Corcoran. Though it is only on the fourth floor, the building sits where Crosby Street hits a dead end, giving it an unobstructed view. “You’re looking north at everything, at the entire city,” she said. Brooklyn: 377 Union Street, TownhouseImageThe townhouse was recently renovated — just a few days after prosecutors accused Mr. Manafort of misappropriating a $5 million loan for construction.Credit...Travis MarkWhen Mr. Manafort’s family bought this turn-of-the-century townhouse on a wide, tree-trimmed block in Carroll Gardens, it still had all its original glamour, said Lindsay Barton Barrett, a broker at Compass.She sold it to the family for just under $3 million in 2012.There were encrusted mantle pieces, delicate plasterwork and stippled floral wall coverings spread across its more than 4,000 square feet. It has since undergone extensive renovation, some of which began in October 2017 — just a few days after prosecutors accused Mr. Manafort of misappropriating a $5 million loan for construction to instead buy another property in California. Long Island: 174 Jobs Lane, Water Mill, N.Y.ImageA tennis and basketball court, swimming pool - even a chipping green and sand trap. What more could you want?Credit...via Google MapsTen bedrooms! A tennis court! A little patch of green and a sand trap to practice your putt! Those amenities, plus its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, make Mr. Manafort’s forfeited Long Island mansion a pretty desirable property, said Paul Brennan, Douglas Elliman’s executive manager for sales in the Hamptons. But Mr. Brennan said the estimated $7 million value assigned by real estate websites like Trulia seems high.“If you want a high price on a tainted guy’s house, you are not going to get it,” Mr. Brennan said. For example, the house owned by Bernard L. Madoff in nearby Montauk sold for $9.41 million in 2009 after it was seized by the government.Now, it is on the market for more than twice as much, perhaps as its criminal connection has receded with the past.Manhattan: Trump Tower, Apartment, 43rd Floor ImageJust a few floors down from the president's own home. Mr. Manafort used his apartment in the building where his future boss lived, and from which the campaign was run, as a selling point when he pitched himself to Mr. Trump to work on the campaign. Mr. Manafort purchased it in 2006 for $2.6 million. Despite the pink marble lobby and plum location, apartments in the tower seem to have lost some of their selling power. Mr. Manafort told prosecutors that it was worth $6 million during bond negotiations last year. In fact, it had lost a fourth of its value over the past two years, according to the most recent available data from the property site Zillow.

The allegation that the president’s most recent campaign manager beat his wife hardly even made a ripple in the swirling sea of news upon which we now ride every day. But it should have, and the fact that it didn’t shows how steeped in misogyny Trumpworld is.On Sunday, Brad Parscale was the third of Trump’s campaign managers to be arrested. But this arrest was unlike the other two. This arrest wasn’t like the arrest of Steve Bannon for federal fraud charges or the arrest of Paul Manafort after “being convicted or pleading guilty to a broad array of charges including bank and tax fraud, witness tampering and conspiracy against the United States.” No, the arrest of Brad Parscale was very different than the arrest of the president’s two other campaign managers. Because on Sunday, Brad Parscale was taken into custody amid allegations of domestic violence. The Trump campaign is no stranger to domestic violence, but this was the first time a Trump campaign manager faced allegations of it.On Sunday afternoon, Candice Parscale ran from her own home and caught a real-estate agent who was showing a home nearby. The agent Candice Parscale flagged down to call the police is recorded on the 911 call as saying, “Oh no, did he do that? Oh my gosh, your arms, both your arms, has he been hurting you?”Later, police officers arrived at the house. When officers asked Candice how she got bruises on her arms and face, she “stated Brad Parscale hits her.” When police came to the home of the man who was Trump’s campaign manager until two months ago, they reported they found Candice with what looked like signs of domestic abuse. One officer wrote that Candice “had several bruises on both of her arms as well as scratches and bruising on her face,” and other noted “several large sized contusions on both of her arms, her cheek and forehead.”In the end, police took 10 guns from the home and took Brad Parscale into custody under the Baker Act, “which authorizes involuntary hospitalization of those considered a threat to themselves or others for psychiatric evaluation.” It was the kind of thing that in a normal presidency might be considered to be an enormous scandal. But in Trumpworld, it’s just called a Sunday.On Wednesday afternoon, Candice released another statement walking back the allegations of abuse detailed in a police report: “The statements I made on Sunday have been misconstrued, let it be clear my husband was not violent towards me that day or any day prior.”Whatever happened here, it was far from the first time there had been allegations of violence against women by men involved in Trump’s campaigns. In 2016, Corey Lewandowski was arrested on misdemeanor battery charges after grabbing the arm of a female Breitbart reporter. Then there’s Rob Porter, the White House aide who was accused of abusing not one but two of his former wives. One allegation of domestic violence is bad, two is worse, and by the time you get to multiple allegations of violence against women by multiple members of the Trump campaign and administration—most notably and obviously including Trump himself—one has to wonder if violence is actually the brand. After all, this is the guy who bragged about “pussy grabbing” and who has 20-whatever sexual assault allegations lodged against him.“The misogyny, the violence, the abuse toward women aren’t a bug in Trumpworld, they’re a feature.”But perhaps the most openly misogynist move of the Trump campaign, and there are lots of them, is the rehiring of Jason Miller. You’ll remember Jason Miller as the guy who impregnated A.J. Delgado during his own wife’s pregnancy and then told her she couldn’t be seen “waddling around the White House pregnant.”But wait, there’s more! In a deposition, Miller also confessed to “other indiscretions,” including visiting “Asian themed” massage parlors.Hiring Miller back is a slap in the face to women everywhere. It shows that Trumpworld doesn’t really care if its employees degrade and mistreat women. There are also allegations that Miller is hiding his income so that he doesn’t have to pay $3,167 a month in child support. Imagine if you will a normal political campaign rehiring someone like this. It’s absolutely unimaginable, but in Trumpworld it’s just what they do.But perhaps that’s the problem—that none of these are so beyond the pale for Trumpworld. Remember, this is the guy who is alleged to have “violently assaulted” first wife Ivana. A 1993 book on Trump included the sentence: “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”The misogyny, the violence, the abuse toward women aren’t a bug in Trumpworld, they’re a feature. It’s not a coincidence that men keep abusing their wives in Trumpworld; it’s the brand, it’s the way they operate. Misogyny is the underlying condition of the Trump administration, it’s the foundation. It’s the way Trump got elected in the first place, with chants of “lock her up” and “send them back.”Trump has brought violence toward women back into the mainstream. He hasn’t tacitly accepted it; he’s embraced it. And just this month, he and Mitch McConnell, on order from the National Rifle Association, stopped the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The scars on these women and on our culture, psychic and in some cases physical, are too real and will not be cured in November or even January. It will take years to unwind the misogyny that Trumpworld has ginned up.CORRECTION: Brad Parscale has not been charged following his arrest Sunday after an incident at his Fort Lauderdale home, where police say he was threatening to harm himself. A previous version of this column incorrectly reported he has been charged with domestic violence.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flatly denied on Sunday that there was ever a quid pro quo between the U.S. and Ukraine days after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged it during a now-infamous press briefing. “I never saw that in the decision-making process that I was a part of,” Pompeo told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “This Week,” referring to the Trump administration’s temporary suspension of military aid to Ukraine over the summer and questions about whether it was withheld in exchange for a political favor. “The conversation was always around what were the strategic implications,” he added. “Would that money get to the right place or would there be corruption in Ukraine and the money wouldn’t flow to the mission that it was intended for.” .@GStephanopoulos on suspending aid: "You saw Mr. Mulvaney right there say that one of the reasons was indeed this idea that Ukraine had to pursue these political investigations."Pompeo: "I'll leave to the chief of staff to explain what it is he said" https://t.co/U9kwy49CzI pic.twitter.com/uaH4MWQigc— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 20, 2019 On Thursday, Mulvaney told reporters the funds were withheld because President Donald Trump had reservations over whether they would be properly spent. He went on to note that Trump had also raised concerns over “corruption that related to the [Democratic National Committee] server,” a reference to a debunked conspiracy theory positing that Ukraine was behind the 2016 hacking of Democratic Party emails. The American intelligence community has said it believes Russia was the culprit. Shortly after Mulvaney’s stunning admission, he released a statement walking back the remarks and claiming there was no quid pro quo even though he previously asserted that “we do that all the time with foreign policy.” Pressed by Stephanopoulos to recognize Mulvaney’s candid and public description of a quid pro quo, Pompeo avoided making any comment. “I’ll leave it to the chief of staff to explain what it is he said and what he intended,” he said. The president and his defenders have repeatedly claimed that no quid pro quo occurred when Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. However, a rough transcript of the call shows that Trump pressured him to “do us a favor” and investigate both the DNC server and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. A whistleblower complaint that cites the discussion alleges that Trump was attempting to solicit interference in the 2020 election by targeting his potential Democratic opponent. Ukraine has found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens, though Trump continues to raise unsubstantiated corruption accusations against the family. RELATED COVERAGE Mulvaney: Trump Still Considers Himself To Be In Hospitality Business White House Aide's Words On Ukraine Upend Impeachment Strategy, Rattle Allies Stephanie Grisham: Mick Mulvaney 'Did A Great Job' At Disastrous Press Briefing Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost

Among the star witnesses who could deliver explosive public testimony in front of live television cameras could be John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, who has been described in testimony as alarmed by what appeared to be pressure on the Ukrainians by Mr. Trump and his allies. Democrats may also decide to call a string of other diplomats and administration officials, including William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who testified in excruciating detail about a quid pro quo in which Mr. Trump and his allies held up security aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden.Privately, White House officials concede they are losing the messaging battle with Democrats, whose inquiry has produced a series of devastating revelations about allegations that the president and his allies conducted a campaign to pressure Ukraine for his own political gain. People close to Mr. Trump said that the coming weeks will be marked by an increased assault on the integrity of the inquiry itself as the White House tries to avoid litigating the facts of what took place between Ukrainian officials and Mr. Trump’s loyalists, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer.White House aides are planning to add communications aides dedicated to impeachment, a move that Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, has pushed for. Among those under consideration to help lead the new team is Tony Sayegh, who recently left the Treasury Department where he was the top spokesman. White House aides have also discussed bringing on in some capacity Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida and a favorite of Mr. Trump’s, a person familiar with the conversations said.Stephen K. Bannon, who was pushed out as the White House chief strategist in August 2017, has also created an unofficial war room in the basement of his Capitol Hill townhouse to wage over the radio a messaging war on the Democratic impeachment effort. Mr. Graham said that Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, has assured him that the White House is “working on getting a messaging team together” and said he hoped it would be as effective as the one that Bill Clinton’s White House assembled during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s.

PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil—Leftist icon Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva lost a much-awaited appeal on Wednesday to overturn a corruption conviction against him, a ruling that clouds his bid to run for president in an October election that polls show he would win.Mr. da Silva denied the charges and his lawyers vowed to “use all legal methods possible” to appeal the decision, including taking their battle to Brazil’s top courts in an unprecedented scenario that has prompted widespread debate among legal experts.Tens of thousands of the former president’s supporters descended on this city in southern Brazil, where the court ruled that “Lula”—as the former metalworker is universally known—accepted a beachfront apartment as a bribe in a vast corruption scandal that has gripped South America.His Workers’ Party showed no signs of giving up its impassioned fight to keep Mr. da Silva in the presidential race, calling the ruling late Wednesday “the beginning of a long journey that—thanks to the will of the people—will return Comrade Lula to the Presidency.”Addressing crowds of supporters in downtown São Paulo Wednesday night, Mr. da Silva compared himself to South African leader Nelson Mandela, who “was sent to prison and then came back and became president.”

Afghan security personnel arrive at the site of an attack at the Marshal Fahim academy.Monday's assault started before daybreak when an attacker detonated his suicide vest at the entrance of the military base, near the Marshal Fahim Military Academy in the west of Kabul, Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for the Ministry of Defense told CNN.The assault dragged on for five hours during which another suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest. Another two were killed by the Afghan National Army and one was captured, Waziri said.Eleven Afghan army personnel were killed and 16 were wounded in the attack, he said. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, though it did not provide any evidence.Although ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack through its media arm, the Amaq News Agency, it didn't provide any evidence to support the claim. The site reported "an immersive attack by the Islamic State fighters targeted the Military Academy in Kabul city."The Marshal Fahim National Defense University shares the site with two other military facilities, including a NATO base that houses instructors for the academy, according to spokesman Shah Hussain Murtazawi. The military complex, which is located in the 5th police district of Kabul, is near the site of a suicide bombing in October 2017.Carnage in Kabul adds to US challenges in AfghanistanThe attack comes just two days after an attacker driving an ambulance packed with explosives killedmore than 100 in the Afghan capital.The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing, which took place on Saturday when an explosion-packed ambulance drove through a checkpoint. More than 200 people were left injured, including 30 police officers, according to Kabul police chief Basir Mojahid said."I felt the earth shaking first for a few seconds then the explosion," 48-year-old Kamaludin, who witnessed the ambulance blast, told CNN. "I was like 50 meters away. I fell to the ground ... (then) iI saw carnage. I saw a lot of blood, body parts."JUST WATCHEDAmbulance packed with explosives kills dozensReplayMore Videos ...MUST WATCHAmbulance packed with explosives kills dozens 01:54The devastating attack took place exactly a week after militantsstormed a Kabul hotelin a 12-hour standoff.In that incident, which was claimed by the Taliban, Afghan authorities say the attackers killed at least 18 people, including 12 foreigners, before security forces broke through. At least four assailants also were killed.Some Afghan authorities blamedthe Pakistan-based Haqqani networkfor the attack, who are aligned with the Taliban.Just days after the hotel siege ended, ISIS militantsattacked the officesof British aid agency Save the Children in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad on Wednesday, killing at least four people and injuring dozens in a 10-hour battle, according to local authorities. All five attackers were killed.Day laborer Sayed Hassan told CNN he feared for his family and children, and wanted better security in Kabul. "I leave home in the mornings and I am not sure if I will not get killed," he said.The repeated attacks and growing atmosphere of insecurity highlights the problems faced by theUnited States military presence in Afghanistan,reinforced with thousands of new troops by the Trump administration.Despite the US presence in the country since 2001, the Taliban have only grown more powerful in recent years. As of October 2017, the Taliban and other insurgents controlled 14% of the country's districts and contested another 30%, according to US military data released to CNN. Afghanistan's national government appears weak and divided in the face of the assault, which has cost the lives of at least 7,000 Afghan soldiers in the past year.Monday had been set aside asa public day of mourning for the victimsof Saturday's ambulance blast, while Tuesday was intended as a national day of prayer.But, instead, the new attack has only highlighted what CNN's Paton Walsh wrote in the wake of the Kabul Hotel attack which started the week of bloodshed."Nowhere is really safe now."This story has been updated to reflect the latest data from the US military.

The U.S. repatriated four Americans charged with supporting ISIS in September, the last of a group of American ISIS supporters who were being held by U.S. allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces.The move brings the total number of U.S. citizens charged with terror-related offenses for their support of ISIS and repatriated from Iraq and Syria to the U.S. to 10, the Justice Department announced Thursday.American authorities lauded their success in regaining custody of the supporters as a warning to those who may attempt to travel and join ISIS."The United States continues to lead by example by working with the Syrian Democratic Forces to repatriate American citizens accused of supporting ISIS," said Amb. Nathan Sales, State Department coordinator for counterterrorism. "We call on other nations, particularly in Western Europe, to take responsibility for their citizens."The recently repatriated men include Emraan Ali and his son, Jihad Ali, who traveled with their family to Syria in March 2015 to join ISIS, according to the DOJ. The two surrendered to the Syrian Democratic Forces, a largely Kurdish militia, in March 2019, during the last sustained ISIS battles to maintain territory in Syria.The other men, Abdelhamid Al-Madioum and Lirim Sylejmani also allegedly joined ISIS in 2015 and were captured in 2019. Sylejmani, a Kosovo-born naturalized citizen, has previously spoken publicly about his time with the Islamic State group while in SDF custody.The U.S. has regained custody of six other citizens who left the country to support and fight for ISIS since 2017. All 10 repatriated citizens faced charges of conspiring to, attempting to or providing material support for ISIS or concealing terrorism financing. One has been sentenced to 20 years in prison, the rest of the cases are still underway.The repatriations are part of a broader government effort to prevent Americans from leaving the country to fight for ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and to investigate and charge those two willingly do so, a key piece of the U.S. terrorism prevention strategy. U.S. authorities have supported other countries in efforts to do the same, including sharing evidence.

Sketch comedy showcase "Saturday Night Live" opened its 45th season with a play on President Donald Trump's White House woes as he confronts a formal impeachment inquiry over his attempts to get Ukraine's president to investigate political rival Joe Biden's son.In the show's cold open Alec Baldwin returns to his recurring role as the president, this time embattled and seeking the counsel of his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, portrayed by Kate McKinnon."I’m being impeached," Trump says. "It’s the greatest presidential harassment of all time."Giuliani responds, "Nobody is going to find out about our illegal side dealings with the Ukraine. Or how we tried to cover up those side dealings. Or how we tried to cover up the cover up.""Where are you right now?" Trump asks.Giuliani: "I’m on CNN."Trump eventually seeks the advice of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, played by new featured player Bowen Yang."You have a big ocean in your country?" Kim says. "Send whistleblower to the bottom of there."The president finally reaches out to the man he thinks is Ray Donovan, the Hollywood fixer from Showtime's eponymous program, but Trump ends up talking to the actor who plays Donovan, Liev Schreiber.Schreiber, in a cameo, says he doesn't work as a fixer in real life. But when Trump asks him about Liam Neeson, the actor says, "Actually, Liam might do it.""SNL" stayed on topic with a spoof of CNN's election town halls, this one titled, "Impeachment Town Hall," featuring so many Democratic presidential candidates that New Jersey U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, played by Chris Redd, is told he could leave early to beat traffic.The host for the evening, Woody Harrelson, portrays former Vice President Joe Biden, and ex-cast member Maya Rudolph returned to Studio 8H to play U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris.McKinnon's Sen. Elizabeth Warren expresses confidence in her role as one of the top candidates."I hope you guys enjoyed hot girl summer," she says, "because now it’s school librarian fall."Larry David returned to play Sen. Bernie Sanders, who says, "I'm so excited to be back and to ruin things a second time."Rudolph's Harris appears to be auditioning for a crime drama rather than the White House."I’m America’s cool aunt," she says. "Give you weed but then arrest you for having weed. I'm a walking, talking TNT show. 'Kamala,' Sundays on TNT.'Biden tries to appeal to voters' need for stability."Look, I’m like plastic straws," he says. "I’ve been around forever. I’ve always worked. But now you’re mad at me. Drink up, America."News segment "Weekend Update" hammered the impeachment theme, with co-host Colin Che fretting over the length of the process."I bet someone explained how long impeachment takes to John Wilkes Booth and he said, 'All right, well, where's he at right now?'" Che says.A spoof of a current affairs talk show, "Inside the Beltway," looked at Trump's ability to emerge from past controversies that some pundits said would end his political career.As the show flashes back to Trump's remarks about Mexican immigrants ("rapists") and late Sen. John McCain ("I like people who weren't captured") and to the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, a commentator played by Kenan Thompson predicts the correct outcome every time."Ain't nothin' gonna' happen," he says. And that's his prescription for impeachment: "He's gonna win again."Billie Eilish made her SNL debut as the musical guest.

Nice try, Bezos.Abuse by middlmen (wholesalers, retailer groups) is commonplace - just because this time it is online isn't magically different. Waving your hand and saying 'if it weren't for Amazon, there'd be no long tail' is just silly.The rest of your arguments are just a gish gallop: Slotting fees, not a charity, vendor's own fault, claims of price fixing, and pointing fingers at others. Naw, ain't buying it. Capture via every possible trick is part of how big vendors grow. It's literally why we have so many laws that set limits on what can or can't be done.Conspicuously absent from your argument on why disruptive online businesses undercut retail: pretending that they're exempt from any inconvenient law. That's the M.O. of Amazon, Uber, etc. They're not competing, they're unilaterally claiming exemptions. FTN.

Bookmarks can be migrated. By your average user? Without a Mac to run the desktop version of Safari?Photographs can be migrated.Easily if you have a computer, but otherwise, only with considerable difficulty.Music libraryâ(TM)s can be migrated/transcoded to/as MP3 or whatever format you use. If one uses Apple Music or whatever they donâ(TM)t have to purchase music through the Apple store they can just use your existing MP3s or whatever in the player.But if they did purchase music through the Apple store, they can't move it unless it is DRM-free. At least at one time, that involved paying an additional per-track fee. Not sure if that's still true. And for movies and TV shows that you've purchased (why?), you can't get DRM-free versions at all, AFAIK.DRM doesn't cease to be a barrier to portability just because you could have avoided it by not buying something that you already bought.If you purchase a VPN app that subscription transfers over. If the VPN app has a version on the other platform. And that only applies to software that involves a monthly subscription fee. Any app that you actually buy becomes worthless when you switch platforms. And in-app purchases to unlock ad-free versions of shareware-style apps are also not necessarily honored if you switch platforms.Looking at the list of apps that I use on a regular basis, there's at least one critical paid app for which no Android version exists and no Android equivalent exists even if I were willing to pay for the app all over again. That's what lock-in looks like; my migration strategy would involve quitting my job so that I could spend a year writing the software that I need. That's the polar opposite of your experience.For most users, reality lies somewhere in between those two extremes, with a mixture of minor inconveniences, significant hurdles, and things that you paid for and can no longer use.

Amazon wowed the internet back in 2016 with its vision of a cashier-free store, Amazon Go, where you could just grab what you want and get an auto-tallied and auto-paid bill, courtesy of computer vision and other sensors that track what you take. After trialing its first store in Seattle with employees for more than a year, the long-delayed public opening finally came on January 22 this year.Now we know it wasn’t a one-off effort: Today GeekWire reports that a second location is prepped for opening soon.Following a reader tip, GeekWire reporters confirmed that Amazon is putting the finishing touches on a second store in the Madison Centre, a 36-story high-rise across from the Seattle Central Library. This one is much bigger–coming in at about 3,000 square feet, versus 1,800 square feet of the original location. More product and bigger crowds will further challenge Amazon’s cameras and algorithms–a necessary step if it’s going to scale. In May, Amazon confirmed plans to open Go stores in San Francisco and Chicago. Recode reports that at least six stores beyond Seattle are in the works. But it’s unclear how far Go will go, or even if Amazon knows.Related: This AI Startup Wants To Automate Every Store Like Amazon GoIn 2016, Business Insider said it had unearthed Amazon documents showing plans to open about 2,000 automated stores–a report that Amazon quickly batted down. Amazon also says that it has no plans to expand the cashier-free technology to the Whole Foods supermarket chain, which it bought in August 2017. If it were to scale Go for a full-size store, the logistical challenge would grow considerably. The average Whole Foods store has 40,000 square feet of floor space.

Rudy Giuliani is the most glaring example. A former New York mayor serving as the president’s private lawyer, Giuliani conducted foreign policy in Ukraine on Trump’s behalf without enduring the confirmation process or even going under contract with the U.S. government. And he did it in ways that were at odds with official American policy, as numerous career diplomats and national-security officials testified in the House impeachment proceedings.Trump has also refused to fill crucial vacancies within the executive branch—leaving the Federal Election Commission unable to take any enforcement actions for violations of federal campaign laws in the lead-up to the 2020 election, for example. Moreover, rather than making formal appointments and soliciting the Senate’s advice and consent, as the Constitution requires for top-tier officials, Trump has installed temporary appointees in key posts in his administration—including giving Mick Mulvaney the dual titles of acting White House chief of staff and acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, Trump isn’t the first president to appoint acting officials. But he has explicitly defended his extensive use of this stopgap tool because of the flexibility it gives him.In short, Philbin is badly mistaken if he thinks that, after the trial is over, Congress can counteract Trump’s worst instincts by holding up his nominees. The last option Philbin listed was impeachment itself. Trump and his allies have deceived themselves and their supporters that impeachment—the ultimate guard against presidential excess—is nothing more than a cynical instrument of partisan warfare. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, announced yesterday that Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine scandal opens the door to impeachment of a future President Joe Biden over activity by him and his son in the same country.Worse still, Trump has set a precedent that compliance with investigations by the legislative branch would diminish his own power, and is therefore purely optional. Impeachment cannot work if Congress lacks the basic facts bearing on the grounds for impeachment. This president has roundly defied subpoenas for witnesses and documentary evidence, and he has suffered no adverse consequences for doing so. Oversight of the sprawling and powerful executive branch is a vital function of Congress, yet why would any future president of either party comply with politically damaging congressional investigations if Trump got away with evading them with impunity?All told, Philbin’s list of Congress’s remaining levers of presidential oversight is antiquated—as a Trump lawyer, of all people, should know—and in fact provides a point-by-point argument for why the constitutional stakes are now so high.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program alive for now is a victory for hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children. But it’s a temporary victory — far from the permanent protections they have awaited for nearly two decades.The unexpected decision may have assured DACA recipients that they can continue to live and work in the US free of fear of deportation for another day. But their victory is, legally speaking, quite narrow, and it gives Trump plenty of leeway to move forward with terminating the program, which has protected some 670,000 DREAMers.The justices wrote in their opinion that Trump would have to articulate a more robust rationale for terminating the program. He’s already claiming on Twitter that he still wants to end DACA, but it’s not likely that he could do so before the presidential election or even Inauguration Day in 2021. But if Trump wins a second term, time would be on his side. And even if he leaves office, the only way that DREAMers, including those who have long waited for a chance to apply for DACA, can get assurance of their right to remain in the US is if Congress intervenes. Given that DACA has been the subject of contentious legislative debate for the better part of a decade, policy experts aren’t hopeful that the next few months leading up to the presidential election will be the time to get it done. “DACA recipients’ status remains subject to the whims of the executive branch,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, the Bipartisan Policy Institute’s director of immigration and cross-border policy. “It has been that way since 2012. It’s past time.”Trump suggested Thursday in a tweet that he would not abandon his efforts to end the program: As President of the United States, I am asking for a legal solution on DACA, not a political one, consistent with the rule of law. The Supreme Court is not willing to give us one, so now we have to start this process all over again.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020 It’s not clear what “start this process all over again” might mean.One option is for the administration to try again on ending the program the same way it did in 2017: The Department of Homeland Security could issue another memo. Trump could also issue an executive order terminating DACA. But either method would likely be challenged and blocked swiftly in federal court, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School. Whether, and how quickly, the administration could defend its policy on appeal remains an open question. The justices wrote in their opinion that if they wanted their decision to survive in the courts, the administration would have to address why it decided not to partially roll back protections for DACA recipients — such as taking away their work authorization but still shielding them from deportation. It’s not clear whether the Trump administration has any interest in more narrowly revoking their protections, but even so, it would be devastating for DREAMers to lose their ability to work in the US. The administration would also have to address why the interests of DACA recipients, who have relied on the program since 2012, do not outweigh the administration’s interests in terminating the program. DACA recipients have been settled in the US for years — some arriving before they were old enough to remember — and have earned degrees and established careers and families here. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has expressed concern that DACA could face litigation because it alleges the program was created illegally via executive action. Alternatively, the administration could try terminating DACA via the regulatory process, which would put termination on stronger legal footing. But the entire process could last months, if not years, requiring that officials draft and issue a proposed rule, solicit comments from the public, and address those comments before publishing a final rule. “Neither alternative is likely to terminate the DACA program before the presidential election in November,” Yale-Loehr said. “This makes the election even more important than before. If President Trump wins reelection, he will have another four years to try to terminate the DACA program.” Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has said that, if he is elected, he would reinstate DACA and send a bill to Congress offering a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers.About 66,000 people have become eligible for DACA since 2017, when the Trump administration stopped accepting new applications for the program amid ongoing court challenges. Those young immigrants have been waiting for their chance to apply for the program, but it’s not clear whether the Trump administration will resume accepting new applications now that the Supreme Court has ruled.US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that handles DACA applications and renewals, will have to issue guidance as to how it intends to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling. The agency declined to comment on its intentions Thursday. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who helped argue the DACA case before the Supreme Court last fall, told the Washington Post that “anyone who qualifies as a DREAMer under DACA should be allowed to be in the program.”In the meantime, immigration attorneys are nevertheless advising that people who are eligible for DACA — namely, those born after 1981 who arrived in the US before they turned 16, do not have a disqualifying criminal conviction, and are either in school or the military or who have graduated from high school — submit their applications. Democrats have long fought for permanent protections for DREAMers, dating back to the first version of the DREAM Act introduced in 2001. Such measures remain widely popular on a bipartisan basis; even 69 percent of Trump voters support protections for DREAMers, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. But time and time again, related bills have reached a familiar impasse: Democrats insist on a clean bill offering DREAMers protections while Republicans demand stricter border security measures in return. Trump’s next move will likely dictate the urgency of the ongoing policy debate in Congress.“If the administration sits on this, Congress wouldn’t have impetus to act because the program will continue to exist,” Cardinal Brown said. “If he starts the process of ending DACA all over again, then that does put some pressure on Congress, particularly if majorities in Congress want to see DACA recipients maintain status.” It’s not clear yet what Trump might demand in return for permanent protections for DACA. Since he announced his decision to terminate the program in 2017, he has already brought to fruition many of his policy priorities on immigration, including funding for the border wall, restrictions on legal immigration, and a near-complete shutdown of asylum on the southern border. Additional restrictions on immigration might be a tough pill for Democrats to swallow. Democrats might also be tempted to wait until after the presidential election to return to the negotiating table if Trump delays acting on DACA, Cardinal Brown said. If Biden wins the presidency, more palatable opportunities to bargain with Republicans may open up in the lame-duck session. Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and longtime advocate for DREAMers, didn’t appear hopeful that Congress could pass permanent protections for DREAMers in the coming months, urging Trump on the Senate floor Thursday to give Congress time “to do our part.”“I’m calling on the president and those around him — I beg them — let’s give these DACA protectees till the end of this year ... till after the election,” he said.In the meantime, Democratic leaders are pushing preexisting proposals to help DREAMers. “We’re celebrating today, but tomorrow we’ll keep fighting for permanent protections for Dreamers,” Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), said in a statement Thursday. “The Supreme Court ruling is a wake-up call for congressional action by the Senate. ... President Trump broke his promise to protect Dreamers, and I fully expect his administration to enact more cruelty.”The Dream and Promise Act, which the Democrat-controlled House passed in June 2019, is chief among Democrats’ priorities. It offers a pathway to citizenship for about 2.5 million DREAMers and other immigrants with temporary legal status (the original DREAM Act was narrower, covering about 1.5 million people). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he is unlikely to allow a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber.The CHC is also asking the Senate to vote on the latest coronavirus relief package, known as the Heroes Act, which would provide an automatic extension for DACA recipients’ work permits. Many DACA recipients have been deemed essential workers, with 27,000 of them treating patients on the front lines of the pandemic as health care practitioners or medical support staff. But these proposals have little hope of passing in the Republican-led Senate right now. “I’m still very nervous for these DACA recipients because it’s not over,” Cardinal Brown said. “I think that Congress always breathes a sigh of relief when a hot potato political issue is punted, but it’s not buying them that much time.” Will you help keep Vox free for all? Millions of people rely on Vox to understand how the policy decisions made in Washington, from health care to unemployment to housing, could impact their lives. Our work is well-sourced, research-driven, and in-depth. And that kind of work takes resources. Even after the economy recovers, advertising alone will never be enough to support it. If you have already made a contribution to Vox, thank you. If you haven’t, help us keep our journalism free for everyone by making a financial contribution today, from as little as $3.

With a slew of depositions of key figures in the impeachment inquiry lined up for next week, House Democrats aren’t anywhere near done compiling evidence of President Trump’s misconduct—and yet in the span of just a few hours this past week they got enough to make staying focused their biggest obstacle. In a remarkable appearance at the White House briefing room podium on Thursday, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted that President Trump held up nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine as leverage for them to investigate his political rivals—complicating repeated GOP defenses that there was “no quid pro quo” and surprising Democrats who have insisted that the question of quid pro quo is not central to their impeachment of Trump.Mulvaney also announced that the administration would host the G7 conference of world leaders at Trump’s golf club in Florida—a brazen move to promote the president’s business interests that flared up simmering sentiment among Democrats that they have not focused enough on how Trump has enriched himself through the presidency, something many of them already view as impeachable conduct.As all this unfolded, many of the lawmakers involved with the impeachment inquiry were sitting, phones locked away in boxes, in a secure facility below the Capitol for a deposition from Ambassador Gordon Sondland. They left the room that evening literally several news cycles behind—and exasperated at the difficulty of keeping up with it all as they try to keep their eyes on the ball. “I think we're being constantly invited to change the subject,” remarked Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), a vocal impeachment proponent, who was not locked away on Thursday but was exhausted by the news all the same. “And constantly tempted to focus on the outrage du jour.”It has been accepted for some time that Democrats would have a challenge in maintaining the narrow focus they want for their impeachment inquiry—in particular, Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—given the broad concerns within the caucus about the president’s conduct and his ability to spark fresh controversy daily. But as the grab-bag of grounds for investigating Trumpworld grows at a faster pace than Democrats can keep up with, their cautiously plotted inquiry is being stretched in more directions than ever before. And that could open up new spaces for debate and disagreement within the caucus over how the probe should proceed—namely, whether impeachment should be expanded to accommodate any accumulating evidence of wrongdoing, or if other grounds for impeachment should be set aside in order to preserve what has so far been a successful investigation. The news that is most testing Democrats on this front is Trump’s G7 gambit, which revived the discussion of the Constitution’s emoluments clause that prohibits the president from taking any kind of gift or benefit from a foreigner.Many House Democrats have long believed that Trump has violated the clause due to the steady stream of foreign business at his D.C. hotel and now the steering of a high-profile international conference to his Florida resort. To date, only a small handful of lawmakers have been arguing that this should be a central focus in their impeachment probe—but the brazenness of Trump’s move could change that as the issue is thrust into the spotlight. A top House progressive, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), told The Daily Beast on Friday that there is a case to be made to write an article of impeachment based on the emoluments issue. “We have to see how strong we can make it,” she said. “Obviously, these things are being done in public so it makes it easy.”And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who was among the first lawmakers to advocate for impeachment on the grounds of emoluments, said Friday there’s “more than enough” material out there now to write such an article.Hardly any Democrats shrug off the issue of the president’s profiting off his properties, but there’s a genuine split over whether impeachment is the proper way to respond to it. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) pointed to language in House-passed spending bills that prohibits the administration from spending federal funds at Trump properties, which would make it impossible to host a G7 summit at his Doral hotel.“Impeachment is a last resort,” said Malinowski on Friday. “We have the power of the purse, and we can use the power of the purse. There’s no reason to make it a part of an impeachment inquiry.”Ultimately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership will decide whether or not emoluments are included as part of an impeachment inquiry when the House Judiciary Committee draws up the final articles of impeachment, which is expected to come at some point this fall. But the success so far that Democrats have seen in securing revealing witness testimony already had Democrats wondering how much more they actually need in order to make a persuasive impeachment case to the American people. Mulvaney’s admission on Thursday that there was quid pro quo—and that it’s not a big deal anyway—only supercharged that sentiment, leaving some itchy trigger fingers within the caucus. And yet there’s still a long line of depositions scheduled for next week, including testimony from Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine who is believed to have witnessed at least part of Trump’s pressure campaign firsthand. “Maybe we don’t have to hear from as many witnesses, because we’re starting to get a lot of confessions,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) when asked about Mulvaney’s remarks as he left the Sondland deposition on Thursday. “I think we just try to stay focused and be purposeful, because in 118 days, people start voting in the election.”There isn’t a whole lot of disagreement with that sentiment among House Democrats. But it does have some of them wondering if they couldn’t be doing more, from pushing the emoluments to further probing the complex web of foreign connections woven by Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, which some members around the caucus are anxious to start unraveling.“I think we have the bandwidth to pursue accountability for Giuliani's kind of mafia-like affairs… for the corruption and the emoluments, for the whole suite of misconduct that we're dealing with,” said Huffman. “But some of it is just inherently time-consuming. And I think that's the frustration. I believe all of it rises to the level of impeachable. In a different in a better political climate, we would include all of it, and we probably would have impeached this guy by now.” But, Huffman added, he doesn’t “second-guess” leadership’s strategy and the results it has yielded so far. Even among Democrats who view a broad range of impeachable conduct on the part of the president, the overwhelming desire to not screw up their inquiry may win the day. “It doesn’t matter if you impeach the president on one article or 10,” a Democratic aide told The Daily Beast. “You can only remove him from office once. The problem of having too many crimes to choose from is not a terrible problem to have.”