On a straight party-line vote, the House judiciary committee voted on Friday morning to move two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor, in a crucial final stage before impeachment itself.A full House vote on whether to impeach the president was expected to be taken as early as Wednesday. Trump would be the third president in American history to be impeached.A Senate trial to decide whether to remove Trump from office would follow early next year, with the expectation that the Republican majority in the Senate would acquit Trump.The committee separately approved the two articles of impeachment, charging Trump with abuse of power and obstructing Congress, respectively, on votes of 23-17, with no members crossing party lines. Democrat Ted Lieu of California was absent for medical reasons.“The article is agreed to,” the judiciary chair, Jerry Nadler, said after the first article was approved. “The resolution will be reported to the House.”Challenged after the vote on their lockstep defense of Trump, Republicans at a news conference outside the committee room simply denied that Trump did what he visibly did.Asked whether it was “ever OK for a president to ask a foreign leader to intervene in a US election”, the Arizona congresswoman Debbie Lesko said: “He didn’t do that.”“He did not do that,” she said. “That was because, I think, logically, more likely than the Democratic story is because he wanted to vet out the corruption.”A summary of a 25 July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, released by the White House captures Trump asking Zelenskiy for an investigation of the former vice-president Joe Biden without any mention of corruption in Ukraine.In a statement following the vote, the White House press secretary called the impeachment proceedings a “desperate charade” and said Trump “looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process”.The vote followed a day in which Republicans dug in their heels for 14 hours to avoid a ballot on the impeachment of Trump.Nadler had originally previewed a committee vote to take place on Thursday afternoon following discussion about amendments, mostly proposed by Republicans, to the articles of impeachment.But with each of the committee’s 41 members entitled to speak on every amendment, and a visible Republican determination to elongate the process, Nadler gaveled Thursday’s hearing to a close without a vote at about 11pm.“It has been a long two days of consideration of these articles and it is now very late at night,” Nadler said. “I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these last two days and to search their consciences before we cast our final votes.”Republicans cried foul, accusing Democrats of violating what Republicans conceive as fair process. But Democrats saw no way to accommodate Republican demands, many of which would have rendered the impeachment inquiry unrecognizable as a tribunal on Trump’s conduct.Instead, with amendment after amendment and excited speech after excited speech, Republicans tried to shift the focus of the inquiry to Biden and his son Hunter; to a baseless and debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian tampering in the 2016 US election; to the identity and motives of the whistleblower whose complaint set impeachment in motion; to the conduct of the intelligence committee chair, Adam Schiff; and a smorgasbord of other topics irrelevant to the substantive accusations at hand against the president.For the duration of the impeachment inquiry, which began on 24 September, Republicans have not attempted to defend the substance of conduct by Trump, who allegedly pulled various levers of power to produce a TV moment that he thought would look bad for Biden.The insistent Republican efforts to make the impeachment investigation about anything except Trump’s alleged conduct paralyzed the process on Thursday and created visible frustration in the room, with ranking member Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, at one point leaving his chair in disgust.Democrats accuse Trump of abusing his power for his own political benefit and at the expense of US national security, by conditioning military aid and an Oval Office meeting for Ukraine on the announcement of investigations including into the former vice-president.Trump has denied any wrongdoing.Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview on Fox News Thursday night, ahead of the committee vote, that he was coordinating closely with the White House on impeachment and there was “zero chance” Trump would be removed from office.“The case is so darn weak coming over from the House,” McConnell said. “We all know how it’s going to end.” Topics Trump impeachment inquiry Donald Trump US politics House of Representatives US Congress Republicans Democrats news

A federal judge has ordered that US immigration agents can no longer separate parents and children caught crossing the border from Mexico illegally and must work to reunite those families that have been split up within 30 days. Dana Sabraw, a district court judge in San Diego, granted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, which set a hard deadline in a process that until now had yielded uncertainty about when children might again see their parents.Children younger than five must be reunited with their families within 14 days, the court ruled.“Tears will be flowing in detention centres across the country when the families learn they will be reunited,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU lawyer, after the ruling.It is not clear how border authorities will meet the deadline, however. The health and human services secretary, Alex Azar, told Congress on Tuesday that his department still had custody of 2,047 children separated from their parents at the border. That is only six fewer than the number in HHS custody last Wednesday. Democratic senators said that was not nearly enough progress.Sabraw, an appointee of former president George W Bush, issued a nationwide injunction on future family separations, except where the parent is deemed unfit or does not want to be with the child. His ruling requires that the government provide phone contact between parents and their children within 10 days.Following national and international outcry, Donald Trump signed an executive order last week mandating that families entering the US illegally would no longer be separated under his administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.Before the preliminary injunction ruling, the government urged Sabraw not to rule that it must stop separating families and quickly reunite them, saying Trump’s executive order last week largely addressed those goals. But the judge disagreed. “The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government’s own making,” Sabraw wrote. “They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our constitution.”Tuesday’s ruling – which came after the supreme court upheld Trump’s travel ban targeting five Muslim-majority countries – could open up a legal battle with the justice department, which has blamed elected politicians in Congress for the mess.The DoJ said the ruling “makes it even more imperative” for Congress to pass immigration legislation that would enable the government “to simultaneously enforce the law and keep families together”.“Without this action by Congress, lawlessness at the border will continue,” the department said.Congress is braced for a vote later on Wednesday on an immigration bill that is designed as a compromise between moderate and conservative factions of the congressional Republicans. It is on track for defeat.The bill would provide $25bn in US taxpayers’ money for a wall on the Mexican border, even though Trump pledged repeatedly during the 2016 election campaign that he would force Mexico to pay for it. It would also limit legal immigration; provide a pathway to citizenship for eligible young undocumented immigrants, known as Dreamers; and officially ban family separations at the border. But Democrats and hardline conservative Republicans are refusing to support it.In the face of defeat, some Republicans were considering a plan B: passing narrower legislation by the end of the week curbing the Trump administration’s contentious separating of migrant families.Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, of the Legal Aid Justice Centre in Virginia, said attorneys had spoken to about 200 immigrants at the Port Isabel detention facility near Los Fresnos, Texas, since last week, and only a few knew where their children were being held.“The US government never had any plan to reunite these families that were separated,” he said, and it was now “scrambling to undo this terrible thing that they have done”. On Tuesday, 17 states including New York and California sued the Trump administration to try to force it to reunite children and parents. The states, all of which have Democratic attorneys general, joined Washington DC in filing the lawsuit in a federal court in Seattle, arguing that they were being forced to shoulder increased child welfare, education and social services costs.In a speech before the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Los Angeles, the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, defended the administration for taking a hardline stand on illegal immigration and said voters had elected Trump to do just that.“This is the Trump era,” he said. “We are enforcing our laws again. We know whose side we are on … and we’re on the side of police and we’re on the side of the public safety of the American people.” Many people outraged by the family separations have staged protests in recent days in states including Florida and Texas. In Los Angeles, police arrested 25 demonstrators at a rally on Tuesday before Sessions gave his address.Outside Sessions’ office, protesters carried signs reading “Free the children!” and “Stop caging families”. Clergy members who blocked the street by forming a human chain were handcuffed by police and led away. Topics US immigration Trump administration Donald Trump news

“Please raise your right hand.” These are the Supreme Court confirmation hearings — “This is day two.” — you’re probably all familiar with. “Bigly.” “You just said ‘bigly.’” “Bigly.” Big partisan productions — “A charade and a mockery.” “Anything else you want to say, Judge Bork?” — that dominate the headlines and the airwaves. This is how they used to be. [crickets] Yeah, there actually weren’t any. So how did we get from here — [crickets] — to here? We’ll start in 1937 with former Senator Hugo Black, who’s being congratulated. That’s because he’s just been confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. He’s also been outed as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. So to explain himself, he gets on the radio. “I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.” People are not happy. They’re basically asking: How could the Senate Judiciary Committee let this guy through? Answer: Since the first hearing back in 1873, for this guy, there were no standard ways of holding hearings for Supreme Court nominees. They didn’t have to go and testify, and the hearings didn’t need to be made public. The senators reviewed the nominees among themselves. But then came a couple of amendments to the Constitution. The upshot is they gave more voting power to the people. So the senators needed to start paying more attention to public opinion. And they’re paying attention when Black’s controversial confirmation drives Americans to ask: Why are these hearings private? It’s a big reason why the next nominee to come along gets a public hearing. And it’s not just a public hearing, it’s the first that includes no-holds-barred questioning by the committee. Things are beginning to change. Then World War II comes, and goes. America is suddenly a superpower. Business booms, suburbs grow. “The protest took the form of a boycott.” And we see the beginning of the modern civil-rights era. In 1954, the court rules to end racial segregation in schools. And this marks a point where we really start to see the court using its power to shape parts of American society. That means Americans take a greater interest in who is on the court. That means even more pressure on senators to vet these candidates. Starting with the first nominee after the Brown decision, almost every nominee will have a public hearing. Now change is in full swing. “I Have a Dream,” the march from Selma, “The Feminine Mystique.” The court keeps making controversial rulings on race discrimination, gender discrimination, personal privacy. That means more public interest, more pressure on senators, more issues to parse in the hearings. So the hearings get longer. But just wait. 1981 — game changer. “Good evening. Sandra O’Connor —” First woman nominated to the Supreme Court, first nomination hearing to be televised. The longer senators talk, the more TV time they get. The more TV time they get, the more they can posture for voters watching at home. [senators talking] So the more they talk. With the cameras rolling, we’ll see 10 out of the 12 longest hearings ever. One of those is for Robert Bork — “With a negative recommendation of 9 to 5.” — who famously doesn’t make the cut. Now onto the aughts. There’s an 11-year gap between nominees. Meanwhile, America has become more politically divided, so has the Senate. “Over and over again —” “Wait just a second —” “How many times do we do this before —” Here’s Chief Justice Roberts to explain what happened next. “I mean, you look at two of my colleagues, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, for example. Maybe there were two or three dissenting votes between the two of them.” Yep, three votes against Ginsburg in 1993. No votes against Scalia in 1986. “Now you look at my more recent colleagues and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines.” That’s pretty much right. “And that doesn’t make any sense.” And that’s how we got here. “I’m not looking to take us back to quill pens.” Very long — “Nah, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas.” [laughter] Always very political — “So your failure to answer questions is confounding me.” — very public Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Also, something else to notice: Sometimes these nominees give pretty similar answers. “The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.” “And it protects the right to privacy in a number of ways.” “In various places in the Constitution.” “In a variety of places in the Constitution.” “It’s protected by the Fourth Amendment.” “The Fourth Amendment certainly speaks to the right of privacy.” “It’s founded in the Fourth Amendment.” “The first and most obvious place is the Fourth Amendment.”

transcriptListen to ‘The Daily’: When #MeToo Went on TrialProduced by Michael Simon Johnson and Theo Balcomb, with help from Jazmín Aguilera and Jonathan Wolfe, and edited by Lisa Tobin and M.J. Davis LinOne year ago, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford shared her story. We look at how her testimony came to embody a culture at a crossroads — and at what’s changed since then.michael barbaroMegan, Jodi, take us back to this moment a year ago. Where is the country?jodi kantorLet’s actually go back a little earlier than that. Let’s go back to the summer of 2018.archived recordingBill Cosby, comedian, actor the man once dubbed America’s dad. Tonight, the 80-year-old is convicted on three counts of aggravated indecent assault. Kevin Spacey is being investigated by Scotland Yard for three new cases of sexual assault. With that new trouble for disgraced celebrity chef, Mario Batali. Obviously, these allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault — a lot of things are in motion here.jodi kantorIt’s been months and months since the Weinstein story broke, and #MeToo too has become this global phenomenon.archived recordingThis is somebody — this happened to me, too. #MeToo has been — the phrase has been used consistently about about this case, it happened to them, too.jodi kantorBut there’s also a lot of controversy and a kind of sense of mounting unfairness. A real backlash is accumulating.archived recordingActress Catherine Deneuve denounced the movement because she believes people who did not deserve to be condemned are facing the same consequences as sex offenders. If you try and make a pass at someone, try and indicate that you’re interested, put maybe a hand on her knee, you could be accused of sexual harassment, lose your job —jodi kantorSaying that the whole thing has gone way too far.archived recordingAnd I wanted — I wanted more evidence. I wanted —jodi kantorAnd we’re seeing that tension play out in the news every single day.archived recordingNow to new developments in this bombshell allegations against the head of CBS.jodi kantorRonan Farrow reports a very powerful story about Les Moonves.archived recordingThat includes allegations from six women ranging from unwanted touching to what several of the sources termed sexual assault. As Leslie Moonves spoke about the company’s quarterly earnings, there was no mention of the accusations against him. His lawyers apparently advised him not to discuss the issue. And to some people’s surprise, analysts didn’t ask.jodi kantorBut Moonves refuses to step down.archived recordingThe premiere of Louis C.K.‘s new film was just canceled.jodi kantorBecause of the accusations against Louis C.K., he’s basically lost his platform as a comedian.archived recordingThis past weekend, after nine months out of the spotlight, the comedian took the stage at New York’s Comedy Cellar.jodi kantorBut then all of a sudden, that summer, he begins to come back.archived recordingIn response, social media erupted. One tweet: “It seems I missed the part when Louis C.K. served time. I just remember him living quietly as a millionaire for less than a year.”jodi kantorHe shows up in comedy clubs and begins to make appearances.archived recordingIt might be the most controversial moment of the #MeToo movement yet. Accusations against actor Aziz Ansari.jodi kantorSo there’s an accumulating series of questions about what to do with these men. And then there are cases like the one involving Aziz Ansari, that it just feels like nobody knows quite what to do with —archived recordingMuch of the media world seems to agree the story told by the woman who calls herself Grace about her date with comedian Aziz Ansari certainly does not rise to the level of Harvey Weinstein type misconduct.jodi kantor— the question of whether or how much he really did wrong is very, very much in dispute.archived recordingAs feminists, aren’t we empowered to say no? Yes, of course — I just — I don’t get why we expect him to be a mind reader — I don’t think he was asked to be a mind reader. How wasn’t he?megan twoheySo there’s this web of complicated unanswered questions, and this scientific researcher in California is about to walk right into them.michael barbaroLast month on “The Daily,” Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor told the story of their investigation into Harvey Weinstein, a story that seemed to unite the country in redefining the rules around sex and power. But one year after the Weinstein story broke, a Supreme Court confirmation process came to be seen as a kind of national trial of the #MeToo movement. Today, on the anniversary of that confirmation, new reporting from Megan and Jodi’s book, “She Said,” on the untold story of the woman at the center of that confirmation process, and the journey that led to her testimony in Washington.It’s Friday, October 4.So what do we need to know about Christine Blasey Ford?megan twoheyThis series of events is set in motion in June of 2018.archived recording (donald trump)And we will begin our search for a new justice of the United States Supreme Court that will begin immediately.megan twoheyPresident Trump comes out with his list of potential nominees for this newly open seat on the Supreme Court.archived recording (donald trump)We have a very excellent list of great talented, highly educated, highly intelligent, hopefully tremendous people. I think the list is very outstanding.megan twoheyAnd back in California, Christine Blasey Ford is sitting on a story about one of those potential nominees.archived recording (donald trump)So it will be somebody from that list. So we have now boiled it down to about 25 people.megan twoheyAnd Ford emails a friend one of several people that she’s told her account to over the years. And she says, quote, “The favorite for SCOTUS is the jerk who assaulted me in high school. He’s my age, so he’ll be on the court the rest of my life.” And a friend writes back, he says, “I remember you telling me about him, but I don’t remember his name. Do you mind telling me so that I can read about him?” And she replies, “Brett Kavanaugh.”So in this moment, in this sort of private moment, the clock starts ticking.jodi kantorThere were all these deadlines, and turning points, and external forces that were going to bring very difficult decisions for Christine Blasey Ford. And the first one came on July 9.archived recordingPresident Trump now says he plans to announce his nominee for the US Supreme Court on July 9, one week from Monday.archived recording (donald trump)I think you’ll be very impressed. These are very talented people, brilliant people, and I think you’re going to really love it.jodi kantorSo in the days beforehand, Christine Blasey Ford has a real difficult dilemma, because she felt that she had critical information to provide about a nominee, but she doesn’t know what to do with it. She didn’t know who to trust, or who she could tell, or really, how to go to somebody in charge. She knew that President Trump was going to appoint a conservative judge, but she thought that perhaps there was one who did not have this kind of liability.archived recordingSources tell CBS News the president is focused on four finalists. The top contenders are said to be federal judges, Amy Connie Barrett of Indiana, Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, and Raymond Kethledge of Michigan.jodi kantorSo on July 6, she makes a phone call. The person she’s calling is Representative Anna Eshoo. This is her congressional representative, a Democrat. And a young woman picks up the phone, and immediately, Ford blurts out what she has to say. She says, someone on the Supreme Court shortlist sexually assaulted me in high school. I need to talk to someone in the office. It’s urgent, Trump is about to make his selection. She’s told that somebody will call her back soon. So then she picks up her phone again and she contacts The Washington Post. She clicks on their tip line and she writes, potential Supreme Court nominee with assistance from his friend assaulted me in mid 1980s in Maryland. Have therapy records talking about it. Feel like I shouldn’t be quiet, but not willing to put family in D.C. and CA through a lot of stress. Now she thinks her phone is going to ring immediately, either from The Washington Post or from her congressperson’s office. But in fact, nobody gets back to her.And sure enough, on July 9.archived recording (donald trump)Tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that I will nominate —jodi kantorPresident Trump announces his nominee.archived recording (donald trump)— Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.michael barbaroSo Brett Kavanaugh is now the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court. What happens next?megan twoheyWell, to begin with, the people that Ford had been trying to contact to avoid Kavanaugh becoming the nomination, they’re now available to talk to her. And she has a new decision on her hands. Does she want to move forward with reporting this allegation she doesn’t want to do so in a very public way. Her hope, her belief is that she can share this information with the people who are making the decision. So she moves forward, she meets with her Congresswoman. July 18, they meet. She spells out what had happened. And Eshoo’s office says, O.K., if you’re going to go this kind of civic route of reporting this, then you need to stop talking to The Washington Post, and in fact, stop telling other people. But by this point, word had started to trickle out through her group of friends and into the broader Palo Alto community, including to some of the #MeToo activists. And so she’s getting messages passed along from those people. You know, a friend of hers actually sends a text message saying this is a crucial time in history.michael barbaroWow.megan twoheyEncouraging her to come forward. This account was starting to become much bigger than her alone.And meanwhile, while all of this is playing out behind the scenes, Kavanaugh’s nomination is moving forward in public.archived recordingBut for the president talking to the folks at the White House, they seem to be confident that their pick, Judge Kavanaugh, will sail through. That Judge Brett Kavanaugh is quite simply the most qualified and the most deserving nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.megan twoheyA lot of the focus is on his support for women and girls.archived recording (brett kavanaugh)I have tried to create bonds with my daughters like my dad created with me.megan twoheyThe fact that he has coached his daughter’s girls basketball team.archived recording (brett kavanaugh)For the past seven years, I’ve coached my daughters’ basketball teams.megan twoheyAnd the fact that he has hired a lot of female clerks.archived recordingLike, everything from his mother’s record, and teaching, and then putting yourself through law school, his relationship with his girls — I might be just drinking Kool-Aid, I don’t know, but I sat there, I was like, this guy seems so amazing.megan twoheySo Ford is agonizing over what to do now that Kavanaugh has been nominated, and she’s hearing all of these glowing accounts of his record with women. And she wants her account to be considered, too. And so at the end of July, Congresswoman Eshoo’s office instructs her to write a letter to the committee, to the ranking members of the committee that’s going to be voting on Kavanaugh’s nomination. But Ford chooses to only send that letter to the ranking Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. It’s her understanding that as a constituent of Feinstein’s, she’s going to be guaranteed confidentiality.michael barbaroMm-hmm.megan twoheyAnd she has told us that in that moment of submitting the letter to Feinstein’s office that it dawned on her for the first time, oh my god, I need a lawyer. And she ends up working with Debbie Katz and Lisa Banks, two of the more prominent feminist attorneys in the country who are based in Washington, and the story that’s starting to unfold.jodi kantorSo that’s when I get a call from one of those lawyers, Debbie Katz. It’s Saturday, August 11. She’s just met for a couple of days before. She’s already sounding very, very worried. She doesn’t tell us Ford’s name, but what she says is that this client is completely credible, that she’s a scientist, that she’s very precise, that she tells her story very consistently. That Katz really, really believes her. But what she also said is that she doesn’t quite know what she’s gotten herself into. She says my new client is naive about how big this could become. Katz doesn’t really have a point of view at this point about whether she should come forward or not, but she wants me to quietly pass along the story to the paper. To ask the editors to further investigate Kavanaugh’s treatment of women, because she wants to know if there’s a pattern here or if her client is alone. And by the way, she had asked Feinstein’s office the same thing. This was what she was trying to find out.michael barbaroAnd the paper does start to look more closely at Kavanaugh’s record with women. But Ford’s story itself, her allegations aren’t published in The Times.megan twoheyRight. And we now know that that’s because at this moment in time she has decided to go the congressional route. And in deciding to go the congressional route, she’s now facing a new deadline.archived recordingPresident Trump’s pick to be the next Supreme Court justice will get his Senate confirmation hearing next month.megan twoheyThe Senate Judiciary hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination are set to begin right after Labor Day.archived recordingHearings for Brett Kavanaugh will begin on September 4. It’s a process the Trump administration has said it wants it wrapped up before November’s midterm elections.megan twoheySo she has to make a decision before then.jodi kantorBut remember, it’s a confusing situation, because she doesn’t even know these new lawyers. She is in California, they’re in D.C., they’re having these intense phone calls. These lawyers, Debbie Katz and Lisa Banks, are trying not to impose a point of view on her. They really feel that the decision has to be hers. But on the other hand, she’s sitting there in California saying, what do these lawyers want me to do? Do they have a point of view on this?megan twoheyAnd into this mix comes Ricki Seidman. And Ricki Seidman was a veteran of Supreme Court confirmation battles and a longtime Democratic operative. She had a lot of experience in Supreme Court confirmation battles. In fact, she had been working on the committee that had first learned of Anita Hill’s allegations against Clarence Thomas. And she had encouraged Hill to speak further to the committee at great personal toll to Hill. And so she enters the picture. And she brings with her all this concern that the exact same thing could happen to Ford if she came forward. And so Katz and Banks, the lawyers are, trying their best to be neutral and weigh out the potential pros and cons. But Seidman is pretty adamant. In fact, at one point she flies to California and meets with Ford in person, and spells out all the reasons she thinks she should not come forward.jodi kantorSo Ford at that point has not made a decision and her team feels that she really needs to because the nomination is moving forward in Washington. It’s very heated, it’s very partisan, but it looks like things are ultimately going to go pretty smoothly for Kavanaugh. And so what they decide to do in order to facilitate a decision on Ford’s part is they set an artificial deadline. They say by August 29, which is a few days before the hearings are going to begin, we’re going to choose one of three letters that we’re writing. And they actually draft these three letters, and it’s like each letter could lead to a different outcome not only for Ford but for the country. They’re all variations on the choices she could make. So Ford and her team are looking at these letters and Ford still can’t make a decision, and their deadline passes. And then it’s Thursday, which is the day after the deadline. And at this point, the hearings are really about to begin. And she is just unable to choose. Katz says to her, this is a life defining decision, and it’s yours. But Ford can’t make a decision, and that in effect becomes the decision.That night, she sends one of her sons to sleep with her husband, and she climbs into his IKEA bed. And she says to herself, look, on some level, I deserved the chance to try this. And sitting there in her child’s bed, she sobs.megan twoheyAnd so on September 4, the Kavanaugh hearings begin. And sure, there’s some controversy, but for the most part, it’s looking like smooth sailing that Kavanaugh will in fact be easily confirmed. But the following week on Monday, Ford back in California shows up for her first day of teaching. And it’s clear that word of her allegation is continuing to seep out. At the end of class, she is approached by a reporter from BuzzFeed who says, I know about the letter. She orders the reporter to leave the classroom, to leave the building. But there are reporters who are showing up at her home, that are calling her colleagues. And on September 12 —archived recordingTonight, the mysterious new twist about Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. There is a bombshell report involving Brett Kavanaugh —megan twoheyThe Intercept, an online publication, actually publishes an article.archived recordingIt is quite a doozy. We don’t know too many details about these allegations.megan twoheyAbout the fact that the Democrats are aware that Feinstein has received a letter about Kavanaugh and something that happened with a woman in high school and that they’re trying to obtain it.archived recordingSo let me give you her exact quote on this. She says, I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further. And I have honored that decision —megan twoheyAfter all of that deliberation that ended with Ford not coming forward, there are now all of these other external forces coming into play again that are basically starting to take her story out of her own hands. And in this moment, she realizes, O.K., it looks like my best course of action is to actually tell my story to The Washington Post.michael barbaroWe’ll be right back.jodi kantorSo that afternoon, my phone rings, and it’s Debbie Katz, and she’s calling me in the middle of this whole thing. And she says to me, my client can’t testify.michael barbaroAnd why is she saying that to you?jodi kantorBecause at this point, it’s basically taken everything Ford has had to do this Washington Post piece. She’s already gone further than she had anticipated going. The idea of flying to Washington, and giving testimony — that’s not something she’s ever really even contemplated.archived recordingDeborah Katz is the attorney representing Christine Blasey Ford. Good morning.jodi kantorSo the next morning, Debbie Katz is on a whole bunch of morning TV shows, and the hosts ask her the obvious question, which is, will your client testify?archived recordingMs. Katz, Is your client willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee?jodi kantorAnd Katz says —archived recording (debbie katz)The answer is yes.jodi kantorThe answer is yes.michael barbaroDidn’t you just tell you that she wouldn’t testify?jodi kantorWell, it’s true that for Ford, the prospect of going to Washington at that point seemed unthinkable. But the lawyers and advisors essentially have two reasons. One, they feel they need to buy her time. They tell her that they need to keep her options open and that she can always back out later. Second, things have changed at this point, and they now feel that to kind of preserve the integrity of her story, she needs to tell it live. They’ve seen already privately that they think she’s going to be a very powerful, very credible witness, and they want her to tell that story unfiltered and unmediated to the American public. So essentially, they’re bluffing to preserve that option. So at that point, two different things are happening in public and in private. In public —archived recordingFord’s lawyers issued their latest salvo, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that she wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.jodi kantorThe lawyers are beginning to negotiate with the Republicans for Ford to appear. And it seems like Ford is in some sense preparing to come to Washington.archived recordingWe’re going to hear for them hopefully, on Monday. I’m so glad it’s a public hearing, because I do think the public needs to hear from both sides.jodi kantorBut in private, she’s sending her advisors notes like this. I’m feeling way too much pressure at the moment.megan twoheyAnd Katz says, believe me I don’t want to be another pressure. I’m just cognizant of the time constraints, we need to get an email out to Grassley and Feinstein soon.jodi kantorFord writes back, I can’t go there — she inserts a sad emoji — to D.C.megan twoheyAnd Katz says, that’s O.K. We can always pull out on the basis that they wouldn’t come up with fair rules. This is the right next step. But the attorney really wants to make sure that she has the green light from her client to proceed with negotiations, so she says, to clarify, you’re O.K. with this sending the email which we need to do soon, but you want us to be clear that if they don’t agree to fair terms, you won’t go forward?jodi kantorAnd Ford writes back, I want you to know as you are writing that I can’t guarantee I’ll go to D.C. And she inserts an emoji with a bead of sweat. Can I see final version? And then she adds, I’m so scared I can’t breathe.archived recordingWe’ve seen Republicans, congressional Republicans, really lining up behind this idea that she needs to testify on Monday. You have Senator Jeff Flake saying that she needs to testify on Monday, Senator Collins saying that she needs to testify on Monday.jodi kantorBut by Friday, September 21, the Republicans are losing patience. They announce that they’re going to go ahead and hold a vote the following Monday if a deal has not been reached for Ford to come.archived recording (mitch mcconnell)You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics. But here’s what I want to tell you. In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court.jodi kantorAnd so finally, over the weekend, a deal does materialize. By Sunday, Ford has committed to coming to Washington D.C.megan twoheyAnd then within hours, the whole landscape changes again.jodi kantorSo after all of these weeks of wondering whether other accounts are going to surface about Kavanaugh, two do at almost the same time.archived recordingWe have a second allegation of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh this morning.jodi kantorThe first is the story of Deborah Ramirez, which is published in The New Yorker.archived recordingOne of his Yale classmates tells The New Yorker magazine that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party about 35 years ago.jodi kantorIt’s about a drunken incident at a party at Yale many years ago. It’s about Kavanaugh allegedly thrusting his penis in her face, even to the point where she had to touch it as she was pushing him away. At the same time, Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who’s become a very familiar public face because he’s represented Stormy Daniels, tweets out what sounds like very serious allegations against Kavanaugh.archived recordingAccusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of explosive instances of sexual misconduct.jodi kantorHe says, we’re aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol and drugs to allow a, quote, “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them. Later on, it’s going to become clear that these two allegations are very different. But in that moment, they sort of seemed like a pair because they came into public view at the same time.megan twoheySo what people had assumed would happen, that additional allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh would strengthen Ford’s accusation, and be evidence of a pattern did not happen. In fact, it was by many measures, the opposite.archived recordingThis new allegation is ridiculous. I mean, to accuse somebody of premeditated gang rape, which is what this Michael Avenatti client has done, it just doesn’t add up. It does not —megan twoheyWhere Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh had pushed on some of those like unanswered confusing questions swirling around #MeToo, these new allegations pushed on those questions even harder. And so Republicans and other critics immediately pounced.archived recording (donald trump)36 years ago, nobody ever knew about it, nobody ever heard about it? And now a new judge comes up, and she said, well, it might not be him, and there were gaps, and she said she was totally inebriated.megan twoheyNow they’re coming out and they’re lumping all of these allegations together, and saying it’s all part of a political hit job by the Democrats to take Kavanaugh down.archived recordingTake him down. Take him down at whatever costs. It is pure and simple — Raw politics at whatever cost.jodi kantorSo it’s Thursday, September 27. It’s the day of the testimony.archived recordingThis morning, we continue our hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as associate justice on our Supreme Court.jodi kantorChristine Blasey Ford has in fact shown up.archived recordingThanks, of course, to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh for accepting our community’s invitation to testify.jodi kantorAnd there’s this mood across the country that something really important is going to be decided that day. And I think that was even truer inside the room. It felt like a tribunal. It was a much smaller space than the way it looked on TV. And the lights were so incredibly bright. Like, everybody was under a lot of scrutiny. And the two sides were just bumping up against each other. Tarana Burke was there, the founder of the #MeToo movement. Just a few feet away stood Ashley Kavanaugh, the judge’s wife. And she had this look of horror on her face. And even the way the testimony unfolded added to the impression that one side was going to win and one side was going to lose.archived recording (christine blasey ford)I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.jodi kantorChristine Blasey Ford was very polite but she was also very firm. She was very precise. And many people found her enormously credible.archived recording (brett kavanaugh)Mr. Chairman —jodi kantorBut immediately afterwards, during Judge Kavanaugh’s turn —archived recording (brett kavanaugh)Ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee —jodi kantorHe comes out swinging.archived recording (brett kavanaugh)This confirmation process has become a national disgrace.jodi kantorAnd he is vehemently denying any wrongdoing. Not just Ford’s allegation —archived recording (brett kavanaugh)Gangs, illegitimate children, flights on boats in Rhode Island — all nonsense.jodi kantorAnd he’s positioning himself as a kind of voice of male grievance about the #MeToo movement.archived recording (brett kavanaugh)This whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit.jodi kantorSo I wake up the next morning and I talk to Debbie Katz, one of Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers. And she tells me to take a cab to the Watergate hotel in Washington. And we meet at the hotel, and she takes me into this little narrow conference room. And a minute later in walks Christine Blasey Ford. And all of a sudden, I’m face to face with this woman we’ve all watched so closely.michael barbaroAnd what was your impression?jodi kantorI mean, honestly, my strongest impression of meeting her the next morning is that this is just one person. She looked so everyday. Her hair was tousled from sleep, she was wearing flip-flops, the kind of dark suit she had worn the day before was gone. She was very focused on the practical questions of, O.K., how do I get home to California. Her flight was about to leave. She was trying to figure out, O.K., how do I resume a normal existence?So after Ford leaves, I continue to spend the morning with Debbie Katz and her law partner, Lisa Banks. And basically, they’re waiting like the rest of us. They’re waiting to see what the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to do. So we go back to their office, and we’re in a big conference room, and the TV is on, and they’re waiting for some sort of news development.archived recordingWell, she got the opportunity to testify and have her life turned upside down, and for what? So that she could be placed on the court just like he would have been.jodi kantorEven though they’re at the center of this thing, they’re like the rest of us. They don’t know what’s going to happen next.archived recordingIf there’s a 16-year-old girl who in a few months who undergoes something similar, will she be encouraged to tell somebody because of Christine? Instead of keeping it to herself. She probably will be encouraged, but my question remains the same — to what effect? To what end? Is it going to change anything?jodi kantorSo these two women have worked together on these kinds of issues for years. But as we’re sitting there in the conference room, they sort of adopt different positions. Debbie Katz plays the optimist.archived recording (debbie katz)If we’re evaluating where we are today versus where we were a year ago, there’s no question that a year ago, she would not be allowed to testified if not for the movement giving her support and insistent she be heard.archived recording (lisa banks)I’m not saying the movement is a failure, I’m really not.jodi kantorAnd Lisa Banks, her partner, kind of plays the pessimist. And she says —archived recording (lisa banks)Despite the power of the movement, and how everybody in this country has woken up, and recognize how women have been treated forever, right now, we’re awake to it. We’re energized, were mobilized. And yet because we have these institutions, the results seem to be the same. So maybe the message is different, maybe the messaging is different, they cover their ass in a different way. My problem is the result is exactly the same. And even after recent rounds the backlash, after Trump’s election, even after Harvey Weinstein, the #MeToo movement —jodi kantorThe Senate hasn’t changed. The White House hasn’t changed.archived recording (lisa banks)And we have a Supreme Court —jodi kantorAnd that’s what matters.archived recording (lisa banks)And all of those entities will seek to see just maintain the status quo in terms of white male power and privilege.archived recordingI will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.megan twoheyAnd by the next week, we have a much stronger sense of where this is headed.archived recordingWe need to form a protest and go to the polls, and protest and vote some of these people out, and vote for Republicans —megan twoheyThe display of rage that Kavanaugh had shown during his testimony had really given many Americans permission to voice their own discomfort and anger at where the #MeToo movement had gone.archived recordingToday is Kavanaugh, tomorrow, it could be your brother, your husband, your father, or your son. I don’t like what I just saw here. Anybody can be accused of something. And even if they’re trying to defend themselves, you still want to make it wrong, and that’s not right.megan twoheyYou know, Mike Davis, who was the head Republican staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, later told me in interviews that Avenatti weighing in with the allegations of gang rape had been a gift — had been a gift. That this had provided you know, Kavanaugh’s defenders and people more broadly with the claims that this whole thing had gone too far, and that men were being unfairly accused, and targeted, and victimized.And so this is really the mood that’s taken hold on October 6, the day of the final vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, when I’m in Washington D.C. with Lisa Banks and Debbie Katz at their office. And then we got in the car.And drove to Capitol Hill to watch the confirmation vote.archived recording (debbie katz)And you have this — I don’t know any trial lawyer who doesn’t have this. If I try a three week case, it takes me three weeks to the day to go through every single moment of what we could have done differently.megan twoheyAnd it’s clear that they’re trying to find ways to make sense of this.archived recording (lisa banks)Whatever is happening in there today has been affected by what she has done. And we need to — even if the vote goes the wrong way, which it will, right? But the process has been affected and impacted.She did that and she deserves —archived recordingAs a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate galleries.megan twoheySo we walk into the Senate gallery. You know, there are sort of big wooden doors, you walk down these white marble stairs. And soon, we’re all seated in this almost majestic Senate gallery. And Don McGahn, Trump’s White House counsel, is sitting across from me watching the proceedings with a smile on his face.archived recordingA good man — a good man with sterling academic credentials —megan twoheyAnd one by one, the Republicans are getting up and —archived recordingBut imagine what this has been like for a Judge Kavanaugh’s parents.megan twoheyTalking about —archived recordingOr his wife.megan twoheyHow Kavanaugh is such a victim.archived recordingOr his children.megan twoheyYou know, Democrats are doing the exact opposite.archived recordingThe fact that this touched a nerve to so many Americans and particularly to women who have gone through this experience should put this whole debate in context. We ought to understand the gravity of this debate in light of the cultural change we are now facing in America.megan twoheyAnd then in the end, the vote is taken, and —archived recordingOn this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are 48.megan twoheyIt lines up almost to a T, Republicans in favor, Democrats against.archived recordingAnd the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh of Maryland to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is confirmed.megan twoheyKavanaugh has confirmed.michael barbaroSo Jodi and Megan, it’s been a year since this day. We started this conversation by talking about where the country was in this moment, when Christine Blasey Ford learned that the man she said had sexually assaulted her in high school was being considered for the Supreme Court. You said that there were so many unanswered questions about the #MeToo movement when she learned that. In Kavanaugh’s confirmation and in the months since, have we answered any of those questions?jodi kantorNo. It’s like we took all of these hard questions that were so heated to begin with, and we just poured a political gasoline on them, which is not a recipe for resolving anything. Look, I do think that there were some serious reassessment, especially on a private level, of long ago behavior. But did we move forward on solving any of these fundamental questions about #MeToo? I don’t think so. It’s like instead of causing progress the whole thing caused us to pull apart even farther.michael barbaroWhy do you think that that is?jodi kantorIt feels like when we look at the stories that have played out in the realms of entertainment, and corporate life, it feels like on those were capable of having a more nuanced forward looking discussion. In politics, these stories just become imbued with the heat and poison of American political life. And so it’s just very hard to come to any kind of resolution about them.megan twoheyAnd these two individuals, Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, were turned into symbols by both sides. And yet they’re still symbols. Brett Kavanaugh is now on the Supreme Court. He was always going to be this visible conservative vote on the court. But now he’s going to be trailed by this cultural identity, a representation of male grievance. And Christine Blasey Ford, who went back to California with hopes of being able to return to a normal life, is far from it. It’s not certain if and when that will ever happen. And she is now seen as an icon by many women. She has been flooded with tens of thousands of letters from victims of sexual assault, and sexual harassment, and abuse who have poured their hearts out to her. But she’s also receiving death threats and is often scared to go out in public. And so she is the symbol that she never wanted to be and so is he.michael barbaroMegan and Jodi, thank you again.jodi kantorThank you.megan twoheyThanks for having us.michael barbaroHere’s what else you need to know today.archived recording (donald trump)Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what I’ve been with Ukraine.michael barbaroOn Thursday, President Trump called on China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family over work that Biden’s son did there. The remarks echoed Trump’s request to the president of Ukraine, already the subject of an impeachment inquiry, and could strengthen the Democrats’ case against the president.archived recordingThe president of the United States encouraging a foreign nation to interfere again to help his campaign by investigating a rival is a fundamental breach of the president’s oath of office.michael barbaroSpeaking to reporters, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, one of the leaders of the impeachment inquiry, expressed outrage.archived recordingIt endangers our elections, it endangers our national security. It ought to be condemned by every member of this body, Democrats and Republicans.michael barbaroThere is no evidence that Biden’s son did anything improper in China.Tomorrow on “The Daily.” You can hear the next episode from the 1619 series with Nicole Hannah Jones. We are also releasing 1619 as a standalone series with a new episode publishing later today. You can subscribe to the series by searching for 1619 wherever you listen. The Daily is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Chung, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Adizah Eghan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, Jazmin Aguilera, MJ Davis Lynn, Dan Powell, Sayre Quevedo, and Austin Mitchell. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Stella Tan, and Julia Simon. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

Enlarge this image Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh holds up a small copy of the U.S. Constitution while answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh holds up a small copy of the U.S. Constitution while answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Updated at 10:21 p.m. ETSupreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is presenting himself as an open-minded judge who is guided by the law but not indifferent to the effects of his decisions, during a marathon day of confirmation hearings."I don't live in a bubble," Kavanaugh told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I base my decisions on the law, but I do so with an awareness of the facts and an awareness of the real-world consequences." Politics Kavanaugh Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Off To A Raucous Start The committee's ranking member, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed Kavanaugh on that, as she probed the judge's views on hot-button issues such as abortion and gun control.Kavanaugh said he understands the importance that people attach to the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion — a ruling that was reaffirmed two decades later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey."It's an important precedent of the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh said. But he stopped short of saying whether he believes Roe or Casey was correctly decided. Politics Kavanaugh Hearings, Day 1: Protesters Focus On Roe, Attempted Handshake Goes Viral Kavanaugh was later asked about his dissenting opinion last year in a case involving a teenage immigrant who sought an abortion while in federal custody for crossing the border illegally.Kavanaugh said he would have allowed the Trump administration to require the young woman be placed with an "immigration sponsor," though he added the administration could not use that as a ruse to block the abortion."Consider the circumstances," he said. "She's a 17-year-old, by herself in a foreign country in a facility where she's detained and she has no one to talk to and she's pregnant. Now that is a difficult situation." Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings To Focus On 6 Hot-Button Issues Kavanaugh also defended his dissenting opinion in a case involving a ban on semi-automatic rifles. He argued the ban should have been found unconstitutional, citing a decision by the late Justice Antonin Scalia that only "unusual" weapons can be outlawed."Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions," Kavanaugh said. "As a judge, my job was to follow the Second Amendment decision of the Supreme Court, whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it."Kavanaugh stressed that as a native of the Washington, D.C., area, he is well-aware of the danger posed by gun violence."Of course, the violence in schools is something that we all detest and want to do something about," Kavanaugh said. Politics Brett Kavanaugh Investigated A President, Then Voiced Concerns About Doing Just That Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., challenged Kavanaugh over a dissenting opinion in which he argued that slaughterhouse workers living in the country illegally were not entitled to form a union, despite the express language of the National Labor Relations Act."You claim over and over again to be a textualist — to be carefully weighing every word of a statute," Durbin said. "So why did you go out of your way to interpret the word 'employee' in a way that benefited this horrible business and disadvantaged these exploited workers?"Kavanaugh insisted he was simply following Supreme Court precedent."I have no agenda in any direction," he said. "I'm a judge."Kavanaugh allowed that from time to time the Supreme Court reverses its own precedents. He pointed to once such reversal — Brown v. Board of Education, which ended the "separate but equal" doctrine — as "the single greatest moment in Supreme Court history."For the second day in a row, the hearing was repeatedly interrupted by protesters. But questioning quickly resumed as demonstrators were hustled out of the hearing room by U.S. Capitol Police. Politics Collins Says Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh Called Roe v. Wade 'Settled Law' Barring a surprise, Senate Republicans have the votes to confirm Kavanaugh in time for him to take his place on the high court when it begins its fall term next month. Both supporters and opponents believe he would tilt the Supreme Court to the right, cementing a 5-4 conservative majority for years to come.Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, highlighted Kavanaugh's experience as an appeals court judge, then asked whether he would have any trouble ruling against the president who appointed him."No one is above the law in our constitutional system," Kavanaugh replied. "Under our system of government, the executive branch is subject to the law." Law Who Is Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's Pick For The Supreme Court? Kavanaugh pointed approvingly to several examples of Supreme Court justices who ruled against the presidents who appointed them. He also highlighted his own decision as an appeals court judge, rejecting a military tribunal for terrorism suspect Salim Hamdan, even though it was a "signature prosecution" of the George W. Bush administration in which Kavanaugh served before joining the federal bench."You'll never have a nominee who's ruled for a more unpopular defendant," Kavanaugh said. "You don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences. You base decisions on the law."Kavanaugh is also facing questions about his thoughts on presidential power and immunity. Although he worked on Kenneth Starr's investigation into President Bill Clinton, he later wrote that a sitting president should not have to face the distraction of civil or criminal investigations."What changed was Sept. 11," Kavanaugh said, explaining the evolution of his views. He stressed that his writing on presidential immunity was meant as a recommendation for lawmakers, not a preview of how he might rule as a judge."They were ideas for Congress to consider," Kavanaugh said. "They were not my constitutional views." Enlarge this image A protester disrupts the proceedings as Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP A protester disrupts the proceedings as Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Like previous nominees, Kavanaugh avoided answering questions that might come before the Supreme Court, including whether he would uphold a statute requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and whether a president can offer a pardon in exchange for someone's silence.He also ducked questions about the president's tweets this week criticizing the prosecution of two GOP lawmakers, as well as his comments on the deadly white supremacists rally in Charlottesville, Va."I don't think we want judges commenting on the latest political controversy," Kavanaugh said. "That would ultimately lead the people to doubt whether we're independent, whether we're politicians in robes."Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, grilled Kavanaugh over a legal brief he'd co-authored raising questions about whether native Hawaiians are entitled to protections similar to those granted Native Americans on the mainland. She suggested his reasoning might also affect the treatment of native tribes in Alaska. Kavanaugh noted that his argument was embraced by the Supreme Court on a 7-2 vote.On the question of regulation, Kavanaugh expressed reservations about how much latitude government agencies should be given, saying administrations sometimes try to do through rule-making what they're unable to do through legislation."I'm not a skeptic of regulation at all," Kavanaugh said. "I'm a skeptic of unauthorized regulation — of illegal regulation."Kavanaugh also described his experience tutoring boys from low-income families and working at a soup kitchen as helping to ground his work on the bench."You're a better judge if you're aware," he said. "Judging is important, but I wanted to be more directly involved in the community.""We've all been in courtrooms where the judge is acting a little too full of being a judge," Kavanaugh added. "I try not to do that."Not seeing the video? Click here.

closeVideoAndrew Yang on Democrats' obsession with impeachment, rival candidates' attacks on wealthy AmericansDemocratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang joins Neil Cavuto on 'CAVUTO Live.'With a week-and-a-half to go until the Iowa caucuses, former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson says she’s supporting tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang in the contest that kicks off the presidential nominating calendar."I'm lending my support to Andrew in Iowa, hopefully to help him get past the early primaries & remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. We need that this year. We need to lighten up on a personal level, because the moment is so serious on a political level," Williamson announced in a series of Instagram posts.But the best-selling spiritual author made it clear that she’s not officially “endorsing anyone” in the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination race at this time and is just supporting Yang through Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucuses. "I am not endorsing anyone at this time. I support all the progressive candidates," she emphasized in a statement to Fox News.Williamson went on to say that she will appear with Yang in the first caucus state "because I know the institutional obstructions to his candidacy and I want to see him continue in the race past Iowa."On Instagram, she also touted Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – saying that she admires both of the progressive standard-bearers in the nomination race. But she said that unlike Yang, “right now they don’t need my help.”But she highlighted that "Andrew’s personality is like a tuning fork realigning us with something we need to retrieve, taking us back to a more innocent time, making us remember to chuckle."Yang took to Twitter to thank Williamson, writing that he has “learned a lot from Marianne and continue to do so. She answers questions that many of us haven’t even thought to ask. Very grateful for her friendship and support in this important time.”Yang, once the longest of longs-shots for the nomination, soared to middle-tier status last year in the polls and in campaign fundraising, thanks in part to his push for a universal basic income that would pay all adult Americans $1,000 per month.Williamson, who faced an extreme uphill climb to win the nomination, preached the politics of love and proposed creating a Department of Peace. She dropped her bid for the White House earlier this month.

The US House judiciary committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, said the vote to approve two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump marked 'a solemn and sad day'. The vote was swift with 23 for, 17 against. The ranking Republican Doug Collins displayed anger on 12 December when Nadler suddenly gaveled the marathon hearing closed after 11pm without the crucial vote House committee votes to advance Trump articles of impeachment – live

WASHINGTON — Congress should give the nation’s highest civilian honor posthumously to Emmett Till and his mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, a Republican and a Democratic senator said Wednesday.Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., said the Congressional Gold Medal is long overdue for the Till family.Till was a black teenager lynched in Mississippi in 1955 by white men who were later acquitted despite eyewitness testimony tying them to the killing. He had been accused of whistling at a white woman.Mamie Till-Mobley demanded an open-casket funeral for her son in Chicago. A photograph of Till’s brutalized body galvanized the Civil Rights movement. She remained a Civil Rights activist in honor of her slain son for the rest of her life.“That legacy is still felt today and honoring it is more important than ever,” Burr said in a statement announcing the bill introduction.“While his lynching and the impunity that followed was unique in its horror, it revealed the persistent legacy of racialized terror and violence waged against Black Americans and reflected the stain of racism and bigotry that this nation continues to struggle with today,” Booker said.Till-Mobley created the Emmett Till Players, where teenagers traveled throughout the country presenting the speeches of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. She also was one of the founders of the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, which pushed for the re-investigation of Till’s murder.President George W. Bush signed the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, which allows cold civil rights cases to be reopened, into law in 2008.Follow NBCBLK on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

BERLIN—Huawei Technologies Inc. secured a commitment to build part of Germany’s 5G infrastructure, strengthening its position in Europe’s largest economy despite calls from lawmakers to bar the Chinese company.Telefónica SA, one of three major mobile operators in Germany, said Wednesday it planned to use equipment from Huawei and Finland-based Nokia Corp. to build its 5G wireless network in the country—subject to Huawei equipment meeting government security standards. “Telefónica Germany has clearly taken care not to pre-empt the ongoing political process of defining these security guidelines and at the same time not to delay the start of the 5G rollout,” Klaus Schulze-Löwenberg, a spokesman for the carrier, said. The company said Nokia and Huawei would be “equally responsible” for supplying equipment for 5G antenna technology, with the selection of vendors for the more-sensitive core network coming sometime next year. Telefónica’s decision marks the first public commitment to use Huawei equipment for 5G by one of Germany’s three main wireless operators, which also include domestic leader Deutsche Telekom AG and Vodafone Group PLC. Related Huawei Unveils Latest Legal Challenge Against the U.S. (Dec. 5) U.S. Prosecutors Probe Huawei on New Allegations of Technology Theft (Aug. 29) Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered With Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics (May 25) It comes amid political debate in Germany over whether to allow Huawei to supply equipment for mobile networks or bar it, as the U.S. has, over concerns that the gear could be exploited for espionage by China. The German government recently decided against explicitly barring Huawei, but lawmakers from the ruling coalition have threatened to push an amendment of the nation’s telecommunications security laws that would effectively exclude the Chinese vendor. A parliamentary vote on updated security regulations could come soon. At the annual convention of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union last month, members adopted a nonbinding motion to exclude 5G bids by foreign equipment makers that could be subject to influence from their governments. Deutsche Telekom says it will wait for the dust to settle before signing any new equipment deals. “In view of the unclear political situation, we are not currently entering into any 5G contracts with any manufacturer. We informed the manufacturers about this last week,” the company said. “We hope, however, that we will get political clarity for the 5G expansion in Germany as soon as possible, so as not to fall behind.” The U.S. says Huawei is under the sway of the Chinese government, but the company has said it would be willing to sign a no-spy agreement and welcomes regulatory scrutiny. In Germany, it is already a major supplier to all three network operators in their existing infrastructure, and a Huawei spokesman said this week that efforts to build out the country’s 4G network are continuing. Operators in Germany have lobbied against banning Huawei, saying such a measure would boost the cost of building the 5G network and delay its deployment. Related Video In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Huawei’s Ren Zhengfei discusses how his company will navigate the trade war, concerns over whether its equipment could be used to spy for Beijing and his road trip across America. Photo: Anthony Kwan for The Wall Street Journal Write to Sara Germano at sara.german[email protected] Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

The House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump Wednesday evening, approving two articles of impeachment: one alleging abuse of power, and the other alleging obstruction of Congress.Both articles are based on the Ukraine scandal, meaning the party decided not to introduce any articles of impeachment solely based on the Mueller report, as some had pushed for. You can read the full articles of impeachment at this link.Articles of impeachment are essentially the “charges” against the president that the House of Representatives has now approved. Their approval means the Senate will next hold a trial to determine whether to remove Trump from office.Article I, abuse of power, addresses Trump’s general underlying conduct in the Ukraine scandal. It alleges that Trump abused his power by trying to pressure Ukraine’s government into announcing an investigation into the Bidens by withholding both a White House meeting and military aid. Article II, obstruction of Congress, is about how Trump responded to Democrats’ impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine scandal. It alleges that Trump obstructed the probe by urging witnesses not to cooperate and government agencies not to comply with subpoenas.Article I, “Abuse of Power,” focuses on the underlying facts of the Ukraine scandal. It asserts that Trump: “Corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations” into his political rival Joe Biden, and into “a discredited theory” that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election Attempted to condition two “official acts” on this announcement — a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president, and the release of $391 million of blocked military aid for Ukraine The article adds that, once Trump was “faced with the public revelation of his actions,” he released the aid — but that he “persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.”This, Article I continues, is abusing the powers of the presidency “by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit.” The article also asserts that Trump “betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”Article II, “Obstruction of Congress,” states that President Trump “has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’”Specifically, the article goes on, Trump: Directed the White House to defy a subpoena for documents Directed other executive branch agencies, such as the State Department and Defense Department, to defy subpoenas Directed current and former executive branch officials to refuse subpoenas for their testimony. “This abuse of office served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment,” Article II reads. Therefore, both articles conclude, Trump should be removed from office and barred from holding any future office.The number of articles doesn’t matter all that much — it only takes conviction on one to remove a president — but the Democrats’ decision to go with just two puts this on the lower end of historical presidential impeachments.For President Andrew Johnson in 1868, the full House approved a whopping 11 articles of impeachment. Most were based on Johnson’s violation of a new law blocking him from firing a Cabinet secretary without Senate approval, though one actually focused on mean speeches Johnson gave disparaging Congress. (Johnson ended up being acquitted by a single vote in the Senate.)For President Richard Nixon in 1974, the Judiciary Committee approved three articles related to the Watergate scandal: one alleging obstruction of justice, one alleging abuse of power, and one alleging contempt of Congress. The committee rejected two other articles: one on usurping the powers of Congress, and one accusing Nixon of tax fraud. (Nixon then resigned before the full House could vote to impeach him.)Finally, for President Bill Clinton in 1998, the Judiciary Committee approved four articles related to the Lewinsky scandal. Two, a perjury count and an obstruction of justice count, were then approved by the full House. The two other articles, another perjury count and an abuse of office count, were voted down by the full house. (Clinton was acquitted on both counts in the Senate.) The major decision that Democrats made here was one of omission — that is, they did not introduce an article of impeachment based on special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings, as many in the party have long pushed for. Mueller collected evidence on what sure looks like a pattern of obstruction of justice, exploring matters such as Trump’s attempt to get then-FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn (which failed); Trump’s attempts to get then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from oversight over the Russia probe (which failed); Trump’s firing of Comey; Trump’s order to White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller (which failed); and Trump and his legal team’s urging key figures (like former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort) not to flip while attacking those who did flip (like former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen).The tricky part is that Mueller declined to outright say whether any of this was obstruction of justice — in part, he said, because Justice Department guidelines state he shouldn’t indict a sitting president. This, he said, was Congress’s job.But in practice, that decision — combined with Mueller’s failure to establish any conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with an election — left the special counsel’s findings a political muddle. So while more liberal Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee argued all summer that this was clear obstruction of justice that Trump needed to be held accountable for, moderates in the party were hesitant — and Speaker Nancy Pelosi became a firm opponent of impeachment based on Mueller’s findings. Still, pressure from the base for impeachment continued to rise each month.But it was the Ukraine scandal that truly changed the political situation, by providing Democrats new material about more recent behavior by Trump. It drove Pelosi and nearly all the moderates to support an impeachment inquiry. When the process moved from the House Intelligence Committee (which probed the facts of the Ukraine scandal) to the Judiciary Committee (which is in charge of drawing up articles of impeachment), some members wanted to put the Mueller material back on the table.Yet the party appears to have concluded it was too tough a political sell, and that focusing on the Ukraine scandal alone makes for a more comprehensible case. 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.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Monday plainly explained the problem with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing: “This is not normal.”“Nothing about this is normal,” said Booker. “It is not normal that Senate Republicans are rushing through a confirmation hearing, violating their own statements and betraying the trust of the American people and their colleagues, and failing to take in this hearing even the most basic safety protections for the people around them.”Booker also emphasized that the fears Americans continue to have about the pandemic are “not normal” and the result of the administration’s poor handling of its efforts to combat the coronavirus:In America today, people are scared. ... Many Americans have died, isolated and — and alone, tens of millions of jobs have been lost. One in three American families with children are not getting enough food to eat. More than 100,000 small businesses have closed permanently. Lines of food banks in the wealthiest nations on the planet have stretched for miles. We should be working in a bipartisan way to try and get the virus under control, to get relief for people who are hurting, struggling, and afraid, to help people who are unemployed, to let doctors and nurses and hospital staff putting their lives on the line right now in state after state when Covid is rising know that we have their back on the pandemic. Instead of doing anything to help people who are struggling right now, we are here.Progressive activists are among those who have long pushed Democrats to take a stand on the legitimacy of the nomination and draw attention to how Republicans are using this opportunity to mount yet another power grab. Although Democrats did not take action in the form of a protest or boycott on Monday, Booker’s and other lawmakers’ statements strove to point out how Republicans are applying a different standard to Barrett’s nomination.Democrats also focused extensively Monday on the threat that Barrett’s confirmation could pose to the Affordable Care Act, which is the focus of an upcoming Supreme Court case — in addition to questioning the timing of the nomination. “The American people should decide. The American people should decide. The American people should decide,” Booker said before stating that he would not vote to support Barrett’s confirmation. 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.

In the past week, there’s been a lot of speculation — and anticipation — about how Senate Republicans would vote, when it came to calling more witnesses for the Senate impeachment trial. The hype, however, obscured just how predetermined the outcome was. Of course, the recent attention was in some ways warranted, given the bombshell from former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who said that President Donald Trump had explicitly told him about a quid pro quo between military aid to Ukraine and political investigations, according to his book manuscript. Trump’s defense lawyers, up to this point, have repeatedly pointed to the need for a direct witness who had heard about the alleged quid pro quo from the president himself — and Bolton seemed ready to provide just that. But this narrative belied the one constant throughout this trial, even as new evidence has flowed in to bolster the facts: Republicans’ loyalty to Trump. The vote on Friday against calling more witnesses thoroughly captures this dynamic. It’s the result that matches up most closely with what Senate Republicans have been saying all along. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, after all, has long made his priorities clear: He wanted a quick trial, and he didn’t want any witnesses. Plus, he said, he was making this plan in lockstep with the White House. “There’ll be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this,” McConnell said during a Fox News appearance in December. McConnell’s statement captures how the Republican conference has reacted throughout this trial, including even some closely watched swing-vote senators. First, Democrats’ arguments were too “boring,” then there wasn’t enough information to demonstrate a quid pro quo, and finally — even if Trump committed these offenses, they weren’t serious enough to warrant impeachment. It’s worth noting that this last argument is one that some Democrats made during President Bill Clinton’s trial as well, though those proceedings did include witness testimony. Senate Republicans’ decision to vote against witnesses feels shocking given that historical precedent, and in light of the new information that’s been presented this week. But when examining how they’ve handled these proceedings — and countless other Trump clashes, it isn’t surprising at all. Republicans’ loyalty in the trial echoes numerous instances when they have declined to break with Trump since he’s taken office, largely because he’s still so popular with the Republican base. According to a recent Gallup poll, 89 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing as president. Last year, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) experienced what happens when a Republican defies the president: After writing a Washington Post op-ed opposing the national emergency Trump had declared to obtain funds for his border wall, Tillis was threatened with a primary challenge, and quickly reversed course. Others that have spoken out against Trump in the past, like Alabama Rep. Martha Roby and former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, have paid the price at the ballot box. On issues as varied as Trump’s xenophobic comments about House lawmakers and the president’s implementation of a travel ban, Republicans have balked at opposing Trump despite vast public backlash. They’ve approved judges who’ve been deemed “unqualified” by the American Bar Association, and they’ve confirmed a Supreme Court justice who faced allegations of sexual assault. Friday’s witness vote was just the latest example of them continuing to do the same. 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.

Besides the agreement with Mr. Gates, the special counsel’s team has already secured guilty pleas from two of Mr. Trump’s advisers. Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser, and George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy aide during the campaign, have both pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and agreed to cooperate with the inquiry.Mr. Gates’s plea deal came together over the past few days, according to people familiar with the process. In a letter to friends and family, Mr. Gates said there had been false news stories about an impending plea deal over the past two weeks.But, he added, “Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circuslike atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process.”Testimony from Mr. Gates could give Mr. Mueller’s team a first-person account of the criminal conduct that is claimed in the indictments — a potential blow to Mr. Manafort’s defense strategy. On Friday, Mr. Manafort pledged to continue the fight.“Notwithstanding that Rick Gates pleaded today, I continue to maintain my innocence,” he said in a statement. “I had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence. For reasons yet to surface he chose to do otherwise. This does not alter my commitment to defend myself against the untrue piled up charges contained in the indictments against me.”After Mr. Gates’s plea hearing, prosecutors filed a new indictment against Mr. Manafort. That indictment did not allege new charges against him, but was done for procedural purposes as prosecutors pursue separate cases in Washington and Northern Virginia.

Senator Cory Booker’s sleep/coffee joke is a thing of strange beauty. The first time you hear it – the first time you read “‘Sleep’ and I broke up a few nights ago. I’m dating ‘Coffee’ now. She’s Hot!” on Booker’s Twitter feed – it barely provokes a reaction.But then he tweets it again. And again. And again. The joke starts to irritate you. Why is he doing this? Is it the only joke he knows? But he persists. On and on, tweeting the joke over and over, until something permanently breaks in your mind. Suddenly it is hilarious; it’s the funniest thing you’ve ever heard. It’s the Sideshow Bob rake principle writ large. You’re going to vote for Cory Booker. You know you are.Yes, it is a terrible joke, but that’s what makes it so perfect. You don’t want a funny president. Nobody wants a funny president. Being funny takes up valuable brain space, and president of the US is a job that cannot spare any brain space. Cory Booker always tells the same joke for the same reason that Barack Obama always wore the same outfit; it’s one less decision for him to make.Plus, it’s relatable. What if the coffee joke actually functioned as a joke? What if it was clever, and smart, and provoked an involuntary belly laugh? You would hate him for it. The fact that it doesn’t work is entirely in his favour. We’ve all told jokes that have bombed. We’ve all overshot a moment of vulnerability like that. When we look at Cory Booker, drenched in flop sweat and knowing that he’s just fired off an absolute stinker, we can all see ourselves. His bad joke makes him the underdog, just like you. If only Hillary Clinton had repeatedly told one terrible joke, rather than hiring an intern to tweet an interminable torrent of focus-grouped memes, the world might just be a better place right now.So Cory Booker’s joke is a bad one. But let’s all relax. By the time he finishes his term as president in 2028, you’ll have heard it a trillion times, and you’ll be wetting yourself. Topics US politics Shortcuts Comedy features

BERLIN—Huawei Technologies Inc. secured a commitment to build part of Germany’s 5G infrastructure, strengthening its position in Europe’s largest economy despite calls from lawmakers to bar the Chinese company.Telefónica SA, one of three major mobile operators in Germany, said Wednesday it planned to use equipment from Huawei and Finland-based Nokia Corp. to build its 5G wireless network in the country—subject to Huawei equipment meeting government security standards.“Telefónica...

The Justice Department is filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google. Here’s how the tech giant ended up in the crosshairs of federal regulators. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports. Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images By Oct. 30, 2020 1:23 pm ET WASHINGTON—The federal judge presiding over the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google held a first scheduling hearing Friday, with the search giant arguing it needs quick access to the government’s investigation files before it can decide on its next steps in litigation. The department sued Google last week, taking aim at the heart of the company’s search business. It alleges Google is using exclusionary deals and other tactics to prevent anyone from challenging its dominance in search and search advertising.... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership View Membership Options

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Huawei’s Ren Zhengfei discusses how his company will navigate the trade war, concerns over whether its equipment could be used to spy for Beijing and his road trip across America. Photo: Anthony Kwan for The Wall Street Journal By Jan. 23, 2020 5:30 am ET BEIJING—The U.S. is preparing for a longer and broader campaign to banish Huawei Technologies Co. from next-generation 5G cellular networks around the world, as Washington faces resistance on the front line of its lobbying campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. U.K. officials have indicated they would restrict but not forbid the use of Huawei equipment. The Trump administration sees Britain and Germany as bellwethers that could prompt other nations to welcome Huawei, a giant maker of cellular equipment that... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership View Membership Options

The Senate just guaranteed that President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will be the first in US history that won’t have witnesses. In a 51-49 vote, senators voted Friday against considering more witnesses and documents as part of the impeachment proceedings, effectively clearing the path for the president’s acquittal. Republican Sens. Mitt Romney (UT) and Susan Collins (ME) joined with the 47-member Democratic caucus to support additional testimony, while other closely watched swing senators Lamar Alexander (TN) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) stuck with the Republican conference. Alexander offered a striking rationale for his vote: In a statement he shared on Thursday, he emphasized that he believed the charge that the president demanded a quid pro quo of Ukraine was true. Even so, he concluded that Trump’s actions didn’t reach the level of an impeachable offense.“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Alexander wrote. The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. 8/15— Sen. Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) January 31, 2020 Murkowski announced her decision in a sharply worded statement that also signaled her desire to avoid a tie vote. She emphasized that it would not be possible to hold a “fair trial” in the Senate, while also dinging the House for purportedly sending articles that are “rushed and flawed.” “I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” she said. While there’s strong public support for calling more witnesses — including from 49 percent of Republican voters, according to a CNN poll — Republicans remain wary of breaking with the president. Although some have cited the legal complications around the witness issue, and how sorting it out could extend the trial, the broader reason for opposing witnesses has always been driven by a reluctance to defy Trump. The vote on witnesses was one of the last major obstacles for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has long been eyeing a swift acquittal. The Senate is now poised to vote on the two articles of impeachment next Wednesday. The debate over calling more witnesses has been an ongoing undercurrent of the impeachment trial. House Democrats had delayed sending over the articles of impeachment because they weren’t sure how the Senate would treat the witness issue, and Democrats wound up forcing a series of votes on the topic from the get-go. The conflict became even more salient after Bolton said he’d comply with a Senate subpoena — and reportedly confirmed the quid pro quo Trump demanded in his book manuscript. This past week, interest in witnesses, particularly Bolton, seemed like it was growing. At one point, Romney even posited that it was “increasingly likely” there would be enough Senate Republican votes to support this motion. Democrats have pushed for witness testimony from individuals with firsthand knowledge about Trump’s condition of Ukraine aid on political investigations, because they argue that these people could provide details about his wrongdoing and fill in gaps in the evidence. Republicans had said that there was no one who had been told directly by Trump about the alleged quid pro quo, an assertion that Bolton’s argument rebuts. One of Trump’s defense attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, however, sought to neutralize these calls by arguing that further confirmation of this quid pro quo, which Bolton was expected to provide, simply wouldn’t matter. “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” he said in his remarks. For some lawmakers, this argument may have offered just enough cover to vote against witnesses. In their perfect world, Republicans would have voted on Trump’s acquittal as early as Friday since they’d like to wrap things up as quickly as possible. Democrats, however, had threatened to use procedural tactics, including several amendments to a resolution laying out next steps, to extend the length of the trial. By proposing amendments on Friday, Democrats were able to force votes on different subjects in the same way they did last week, when they pushed every senator to vote on subpoenas for documents from the White House and other government agencies. At the time, those votes kept senators in the chamber until almost 2 am.As a compromise between the two parties, the trial will be on a break this weekend, and lawmakers will return for final closing arguments on Monday. After the prosecution and defense close out their cases, Senators will have an opportunity to make floor speeches about the trial on Tuesday, with a final vote on Trump’s conviction or acquittal scheduled for Wednesday after the State of the Union has already taken place. 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.

Editor’s note: The Economist is making some of its most important coverage of the covid-19 pandemic freely available to readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. To receive it, register here. For our coronavirus tracker and more coverage, see our hubTHE DAX INDEX of Germany’s 30 most valuable listed companies holds up a mirror to the world’s fourth-biggest economy. The reflection isn’t pretty. In mid-March the average “price-to-book” ratio of DAX firms’ market capitalisation to the book value of their assets fell below one, which has previously only happened in 2009 and 2011, amid the global financial crisis and the euro crisis, respectively. It is now hovering barely above one.The pandemic has hit all of the world’s big stockmarkets. But it is shining a particularly brutal light on the weaknesses of Germany’s flagship index, which has underperformed those in other advanced markets (see chart).On April 29th Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker (price-to-book ratio: 0.6) reported that its operating profit sank by 81% in the first quarter, year on year. The day before Lufthansa, which is trading at two-fifths of book value, said it may seek bankruptcy protection, as talks with the government over aid for the airline stalled. Days earlier Deutsche Bank reported a 67% fall in quarterly profits. That this beat analysts’ estimates is damning with faint praise. Its ratio of 0.2 suggests investors don’t think much of its prospects.Germany’s business-software champion, SAP, is doing well enough. The DAX’s only other tech firm, Wirecard, is not. On April 28th the payments processor’s share price fell by 26% when it published incomplete findings of a special audit, commissioned after reports of allegations of accounting fraud. Wirecard also delayed the publication of results for last year, which were due on April 30th.The MDAX, which consists of the next 60 biggest listed companies, looks perkier, thanks to digital darlings such as Delivery Hero and HelloFresh (online food), TeamViewer and Nemetschek (software), Zalando (online fashion), Scout24 (digital classifieds) and Freenet (telecoms), as well as biotech firms like Evotec, Morphosys and Qiagen. Delivery Hero or Qiagen may soon ascend to the DAX, possibly pushing out Lufthansa.“We think obituaries for the DAX are premature,” insists Ulrich Stephan, chief investment officer at Deutsche Bank. He is right. But it would look considerably less morbid with fewer corporate oldies stuck in the pre-digital economy.■This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Despondent DAX"Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

I'm not sure where you got your data, since you didn't, you know, actually cite any but the US is towards the lower end of bribery even amongst 'first-world' countries.Here's an aggregate listing of 'Western' nations by bribery-victim rates [nationmaster.com] - notice the US is almost at the bottom, with 0.2% of the population reporting have paid or been asked for a bribe. That's half the rate of Canada (0.4%)! Far lower than, say, France at 1.3%.Maybe you prefer the OECD's Anti-corruption [oecd.org] reports? You can follow that link to read them yourself! Where's the US? Towards the bottom, again.If you don't like those, you can go to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer [transparency.org] and discover that, again, the US is almost at the bottom of the list - 23rd lowest out of 180.Of course, the funny thing is that the US is perceived as more corrupt that some countries, but when crime-victimization surveys are performed, the US has an actual bribery rate below its perceived rate, but other 'top ranking' countries score higher than popular expectations. Japan, for example...